Davao City First District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte filed a libel and cyber libel complaint on October 23, 2026, targeting GMA Network executives, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag, and former police officer Rodulfo Gracioso Jr. He is seeking P20 million in damages.
The complaint was officially submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor in Davao City. Duterte's lawyer, Atty. Peter Paul Danao, detailed that the P20 million claim comprises P10 million for moral damages and another P10 million for exemplary damages.
The legal action arises from a GMA News report aired on September 25, which featured Gracioso's unverified claims that he delivered cash to the Duterte family on the orders of former House Speaker Lord Allan Velasco. Both Duterte and Velasco have denied these allegations.
Because of their untruthful statements and their clear attempt to tarnish my family’s name. We are doing this for the sake of my children, my mother, and my family.
Paolo Duterte, Davao City Representative
Specifics of the Complaint
Danao clarified that the complaint specifically addresses the September 25 report and does not cover later allegations about properties associated with Duterte. The legal team is considering additional actions should further defamatory reports arise.
Danao emphasized that freedom of the press must be balanced with the responsibility to ensure accurate reporting. He criticized the lack of fact-checking in the GMA report, arguing that it jeopardizes the reputations of those named.
Context and Implications
The allegations made by Gracioso have led to an ongoing NBI investigation, with Matibag confirming the bureau's examination of the claims. This case highlights the ongoing tensions between political figures and media outlets in the Philippines, where issues of defamation and misinformation are increasingly prominent.
The response from the Duterte camp reflects a broader trend in Philippine politics, where high-profile figures often resort to legal avenues to combat perceived slander. This incident may set a precedent for future interactions between public officials and media.