Dela Rosa confirms leading push to junk Duterte impeachment case via Senate resolution
Senator Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa admitted that his office is behind the draft resolution seeking to effectively dismiss the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, citing the limited time left in the 19th Congress.
'Galing 'yon sa office ko,' Dela Rosa told reporters in a chance interview, referring to the document making the rounds in the Senate.
The senator said he is collaborating with colleagues who support the idea of bypassing a trial, though he declined to say how many are on board. At least two other senators have reportedly prepared similar drafts, which may be consolidated and formally filed by next week. 'Una 'yung akin,' he added.
Dela Rosa's confirmation came after reporters noticed that one of his staffers' names appeared on the circulating resolution. He explained the draft builds on Senator Francis Tolentino's manifestation that the impeachment case should be 'functionally dismissed' if unresolved before Congress adjourns on June 30.
According to the draft, since the Senate is set to receive and read the Articles of Impeachment on June 11 — the last session day of the 19th Congress — there would be no time left to hold a trial. The resolution also argues that the proceedings cannot be carried over to the next Congress.
'[C]onsistent with the foregoing, the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte must necessarily be deemed DE FACTO DISMISSED,' the draft reads.
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada and Senator Imee Marcos confirmed seeing the draft.
Estrada said he received a hard copy on June 2, the day the impeachment articles were originally set to be read.
Marcos added that multiple versions are circulating: 'Maraming versions, lahat ay naghahanap ng pinakamabisa at pinaka naaayon sa batas na solusyon,' she said. 'Scrap of paper' without Senate action
Senate President Chiz Escudero stressed that the resolution holds no legal weight unless filed, debated, and passed. 'Mere scrap of paper unless may mag-file niyan,' he said.
The situation raises constitutional questions about whether the Senate can bypass its role as an impeachment court. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano called it a 'dilemma,' asking: 'If a majority says the trial won't go anywhere, who decides?'
Other senators including Joel Villanueva, Bong Go, JV Ejercito, and Cynthia Villar denied seeing the resolution. Ejercito reiterated that holding an impeachment trial is the Senate's constitutional duty.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Republican removes post criticising Sikh congressional prayer
Republican Congresswoman Mary Miller is facing criticism after she said it was 'troubling' that a Muslim led the morning prayer in US Congress, and then changed her social media post once she learnt that it was actually a Sikh man who had spoken. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth,' she wrote in her social media post on X on Friday. The representative later removed her post after being admonished by both her Democratic and Republican colleagues. 'Mary, you're a racist, bigoted, disgusting, and shameful person, you don't deserve to represent anyone in public office,' wrote Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost. The man who led the prayer, Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society, was invited to be the morning guest chaplain by Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew according to Politico. Republican Representative David Valadao took Ms Miller to task for her post. 'I'm troubled by my colleague's remarks about this morning's Sikh prayer, which have since been deleted,' he wrote on X. 'Religious freedom is one of our nation's founding principles, and I started the American Sikh Congressional Caucus to draw attention to this very issue and work towards religious tolerance for all.' Representative Miller's comments, which were also widely considered to be Islamophobic, came on the first day of Eid Al Adha, one of the most important holidays of Islam. Morning invocations are not unusual in the US Congress, and are often given by religious leaders and figures.
