Philippines Vice President Duterte Impeachment Trial to Start in July, Senate Chief Says
Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial will start when a new Congress convenes in July, Senate President Francis Escudero said, ruling out the chances of a special session while lawmakers are on election break.
Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives on Feb. 5, ahead of their recess, for charges including plotting to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and misuse of public funds. The vice president, daughter of ex-leader Rodrigo Duterte, has denied the accusations. The Senate, which will sit as impeachment court, adjourned on the same day without tackling the impeachment complaint.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Slams Trump's Spending Bill: ‘A Disgusting Abomination'
A serious rift has erupted between Elon Musk and President Trump over the massive government spending bill the president has urged Congress to pass. Musk, who donated nearly $275 million toward Trump's 2024 election campaign, on Tuesday posted on X an unambiguous denunciation of the bill, which is called the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. More from Variety London Mayor Sadiq Khan Hails 'Adolescence' for Having 'Mainstreamed' Conversation About 'Epidemic' of Violence Against Women Jon Stewart Tackles Elon Musk's Exit From the Trump Administration: 'This Guy Has Seen Some S--' Elon Musk Says New York Times Is 'Lying Their Ass Off' About His Alleged Drug Use; Newspaper Defends Coverage 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' The tech mogul wrote that the bill 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit' and that 'Congress is making America bankrupt.' Musk, the world's richest person, also posted a warning that voters would 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' in the 2026 midterm elections. On May 28, Musk announced the he would end his tenure as a 'special government employee' — leading the White House's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — after 128 days. Per the U.S. Department of the Interior, a person cannot serve in such a role for more than 130 days in a consecutive year. Sen. Ran Paul (R-Kentucky) was among those chiming in to agree with Musk. 'We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better,' he wrote, quoting Musk's post. Trump, on Truth Social, earlier in the day slammed Paul, writing 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' At a White House press briefing, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt 'how mad do you think President Trump is going to be' about Musk's comments? Leavitt responded that Trump 'already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it.' The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act passed the Republican-controlled House but has yet to clear the Senate. The legislation would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent (with wealthy Americans benefiting the most) and increase funding for the U.S. military and immigration enforcement. In addition, the version that passed the House cuts funding for health, nutrition, education and clean energy programs. Musk has criticized the 'Big Beautiful Bill' before, but using tamer terminology. Last week, for example, Musk criticized Trump's 'massive spending bill' in an interview with CBS's 'Sunday Morning,' saying the legislation 'undermines the work' of DOGE. Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
There Are Limits to Republican Lawmakers' Reach, Even in Texas
For weeks, Republicans lawmakers in Texas had promised that they would require proof of citizenship to vote in most elections, hoping the 2025 Legislature would be a vanguard for other conservative states considering similar measures. Voting rights groups cried foul. An analysis showed that the bill could disproportionately harm Republicans, who were less likely than Democrats to have the required documents. Then, as the Texas legislative session ended on Monday, the bill died. Its failure was one of the many surprising results of this year's legislative session, which was among the most conservative in recent memory. The Legislature passed measures requiring the Ten Commandments in every classroom and creating publicly funded vouchers for private-school tuition. But the session also revealed the limits of right-wing governance, even in a state that President Trump won decisively and that is controlled by Republicans at every level of power. Lawmakers failed to pass strict curbs on wind and solar energy, and a tightened ban on abortion pills from out of state. Texas was a particularly good test case for the G.O.P.'s reach because for the first time in years, Republicans in the Legislature were not actively warring. Gone were the internal fights between House and Senate Republicans that had marred the last several sessions, which occur every two years. Instead, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who controls the State Senate with a firm hand, got mostly what he wanted, a more compliant Texas House. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Chicago Tribune
28 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Court says Trump tariffs are presidential overreach
The Trump administration's arbitrary moves to restructure the international trade environment to accommodate White House whims have suddenly run into reality, specifically established laws. This confrontation is still in the early stages, but it does not bode well for President Donald Trump and his ardent protectionist associates. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade went back to basics in a decision featuring the reminder that, under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by the ability of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump's tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the U.S. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states' efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful. Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia. President Trump has been basing his unilateral tariff authority on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter near the end of December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,' with the proviso that such threats must originate, 'in whole or substantial part outside the United States,' and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months. An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law which reflected the emergency leading to U.S. entry into World War I as a formal declared combatant. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was the declaration by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies then still technically in effect included the 1933 banking crisis related to the hoarding of cash and gold, the 1950 Korean War crisis, a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government. Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of the assets of the parties involved in the threats. This section was used by the Trump administration to justify the new tariffs. IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter's fixation on clear, orderly administration, which he carried to extremes. The severe national crises, traumas and wars described above contrast with today's long-term growth and prosperity, and blessed absence of direct involvement in war. The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working.
