“Resibo” ≠ Redemption: What Risa Hontiveros Still Hasn’t Proven About Michael’s Testimony

Senator Risa Hontiveros showed a stack of “resibos” to defend her office against Michael “Alyas Rene” Maurillo’s bombshell claim—that he was coached, used, or subtly manipulated into dragging Pastor Quiboloy, PRRD, and VP Sara into a political firestorm.

In my opinion, her defense dodges, rather than disproves, the core allegations.

I. VOLUNTEER = WILLING? NOT ALWAYS .

Risa insists Michael emailed her office first. She says that proves it was all his idea.

Sure, he reached out.

But here’s what that doesn’t prove:

• That he wasn’t later coached.

• That no narratives were suggested.

• That he didn’t feel pressured to expand his story.

People under trauma do seek justice. But that doesn’t mean they remain in full control of their voice once institutions, politics, and media get involved.

Voluntariness at the start doesn’t cancel out narrative shaping later.

II. EARLY MENTIONS OF DUTERTE? STILL NOT PROOF.

Risa also claims the Dutertes were already named in Michael’s early affidavit. But she never answers:

• Who helped write it?

• Was he alone when he drafted it?

• Were lawyers, staffers, or allies involved?

The affidavit doesn’t magically prove no one planted or “nudged” those details.

A poor, vulnerable, traumatized witness can easily pick up cues. Especially when political names suddenly enter a story that started with personal abuse claims.

Was Michael’s mind mirroring what was being fed to him?

III. NO PAPER TRAIL ≠ NO PAYOFF. NO CASH ≠ NO COERCION.

Yes, Risa released a screenshot where her office refused to give Michael financial help.

Sure, that may clear her of handing over cash ON RECORD.

But, who ever bribes with a receipt? If there was a payoff, would it be wired, declared, or WhatsApp-confirmed? Of course not.

Bribery—if it happened—would be off-book, third-party, and untraceable by design. So the absence of a money trail proves nothing. It only proves no one was careless enough to leave one.

But here’s the deeper issue: coercion isn’t always about money.

There’s emotional pressure. Psychological dependence. Validation can be a currency. Silence can be a threat.

Michael already admitted he was going through mental anguish. Vulnerable. In that state, the brain doesn’t even need cash to comply—it needs safety, approval, and belonging. Even unspoken cues—“You’re doing the right thing,” “Thank you for your courage”—can frame someone’s narrative without overt manipulation.

And here’s what’s missing from Risa’s “resibo” parade:

• Who helped Michael shape his testimony?

• Who coached him on what mattered?

• Who edited or finalized it before it reached the Senate?

Because without transparency on how that story evolved—from raw memory to formal statement—

we don’t know if Michael was telling his truth…

or someone else’s version of it.

IV. THE MISSING PIECE: CHAIN OF CUSTODY

This is the biggest red flag.

Risa has not shown:

• Who recorded or transcribed Michael’s story.

• Who helped shape the affidavit.

• Whether there was legal, psychological, or independent review.

• How the written narrative came to include high-stakes political allegations.

In a case this explosive, chain of custody matters.

Because without it, testimony can be massaged to fit an agenda—and no one would ever know.

👊 POWER PUNCH: “Resibo” Doesn’t Equal Redemption

Risa’s receipts prove one thing: her version of events. But they don’t debunk Michael’s claims of manipulation. They don’t answer the hard questions about narrative framing. They don’t erase the possibility that emotional coercion also shaped the outcome.

Because in politics, the most powerful kind of pressure isn’t force. It’s direction masked as support.

And in the absence of chain of custody? In the absence of full transparency? In the presence of strategic silence? The benefit of the doubt no longer belongs to the powerful. It belongs to the people demanding truth.

And right now—Risa’s “resibos” fall short.

•••

OPINION | BY ROB RANCES

Disclaimer: This analysis does not assert guilt or wrongdoing by any individual. It is intended to raise critical questions based on publicly available statements and testimonies. The aim is to foster informed public discourse and institutional transparency. All readers are encouraged to examine the facts and arrive at their own conclusions.