Tinig ng masa: Bisaya community in the UAE reacts to moves to impeach VP Sara Duterte
Sara Duterte gained widespread attention after an incident in 2011, where she punched a court sheriff during a demolition operation in Davao. While this moment propelled her into the national spotlight, her rise to prominence began well before that.
Her political identity is strongly linked to her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, who remains one of the most controversial leaders in Philippine history. Both Sara and her father have earned significant support from the people, especially from Visayans, for their efforts in improving Davao City and establishing a solid reputation.
Get the latest news instantly on your phone—join the Filipino Times WhatsApp channel now!
Currently, however, the Vice President is facing impeachment, and the Senate is soon set to convene an impeachment tribunal to determine her fate. A conviction requires 16 votes, any of which could result in her removal from office.
Bisaya voices: Their take on Duterte's impeachment
Surprisingly, many from the Visayan community agree with Duterte's impeachment. The Filipino Times gathered insights from Visayan readers on their views regarding the ongoing proceedings.
[Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of our Visayan readers featured and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Filipino Times, nor do they generalize the opinions of the entire Visayan community.]
Some Visayans expressed that the Dutertes have abused their power for too long and that the Vice President's impeachment will serve as a good example for other corrupt politicians. Translating Visayan comments to English, one netizen said: 'The Dutertes have long abused their power, but now, the consequences of their actions are before them!'
Another one said: 'The impeachment of Duterte shows that no politician is above the law, and we must not let ourselves be victims of their deceit!'
Meanwhile, others think that the Vice President is staying silent and avoiding responsibility. 'Like most politicians, Sara Duterte avoids responsibility. The impeachment complaints are just being passed on because her leadership seems detached from the issue.'
Another reader agreed: 'Vice President Sara Duterte is already facing many complaints, but it seems she's not involved in the processes. Many unresolved issues and accusations are hanging over her.'
But perhaps the biggest issue is the way she handled money. One commenter said: 'I'm concerned about Sara Duterte's actions, especially regarding the 125 million pesos. People are wondering how that money was spent, especially if it was for personal shopping. It raises questions about accountability and transparency.'
Still standing with Sara
Although some Visayans agree with the impeachment, others believe that the government is pushing for the impeachment because they are afraid of the Dutertes.
'They will do everything just to remove the obstacles to their dreams!' one netizen said, referencing to Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his allies. 'If you can't remove them [Dutertes], you'll all be finished, so don't even try! The whole Visayas and Mindanao might take action!'
Other Filipinos still believe that Duterte genuinely cares for the country. 'Those who truly love the Philippines and Filipinos are the ones they are trying to bring down,' one reader expressed.
Lastly, some fellow 'kababayans' stayed neutral and urged the Philippine government to focus on bigger issues in the country. 'Why are you all so eager to impeach Sara? Focus on solving the crimes happening in our country,' one netizen wrote.
'Just let her finish her term and then let the voting happen again. If it's the politicians who will decide, then remove voting in the Philippines. You all just figure it out,' another one said.
Conclusion
Vice President Sara Duterte faces another impeachment proceeding in the Senate, and as the nation watches, Visayans—once among her strongest supporters—are now divided. Some still stand by her, believing the impeachment is politically motivated, while others think it's time for her to be held accountable. How about you, ka-TFT? What's your stand?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Filipino Times
an hour ago
- Filipino Times
House members decry Senate's return of impeachment articles as ‘unconstitutional, insulting'
Incoming House prosecutors and several lawmakers strongly criticized the Senate's decision to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives, calling the move 'unconstitutional,' 'insulting,' and a dangerous precedent. Akbayan Rep.-elect Chel Diokno and Mamamayang Liberal Rep.-elect Leila de Lima, both set to join the prosecution team, condemned the remand, accusing the Senate of violating constitutional principles. 'This is a blatant abandonment of the Constitution,' said Diokno. De Lima questioned the legal foundation of the Senate's actions: 'Where does a court dismiss a complaint without first hearing both sides?' Members of the Makabayan bloc echoed these sentiments. ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro argued that the Senate had no authority to return the articles, stating, 'Our role is done. The Senate, as a co-equal chamber, cannot demand explanations from the House.' Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas warned that the move would further erode public trust in democratic institutions, while Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel accused the Senate of shielding corrupt officials through political maneuvering. House Assistant Minority Leader Gabriel Bordado Jr., a signatory to the impeachment complaint, said the remand was deeply disappointing. 'This has never happened before. It's insulting to the House, which fulfilled its constitutional duty,' he said. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, opted not to dismiss the case outright. Instead, 18 senators voted in favor of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano's amended motion to return the articles to the House, without terminating the proceedings. In February, the House impeached Vice President Duterte with 215 votes, citing graft, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.
Khaleej Times
16 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Philippine Senate returns VP Sara Duterte's impeachment case to lower house
Philippine senators on Tuesday voted to return an impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to the lower house to clarify its constitutionality, in a surprise move just hours after convening a trial that could end her political career. After heated debates among members that included efforts by a Duterte ally to dismiss the case, the senators agreed not to terminate the trial, but first send it back to the lower house to certify that its handling of the process had been lawful. The impeachment of the daughter of firebrand former President Rodrigo Duterte follows an acrimonious falling out last year with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, with whom she ran on a joint ticket that won the 2022 election in a landslide. The Senate's late-night move could provide a lifebuoy for presidential contender Duterte in her make-or-break trial and impact the policy agenda and succession plans of former ally Marcos. . Marcos is limited to a single term in office and has created a powerful enemy in Duterte. He is expected to try to retain influence and protect his legacy by grooming a successor capable of fending off his rival in the next election should she be acquitted. "I think we have upheld our oath to be politically neutral," said Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, a Duterte loyalist who presented the motion to return the case to the House of Representatives. The lower house in February voted to impeach the vice president for high crimes and betrayal of the public trust, alleging budget irregularities, amassing of unusual wealth and a threat to the lives of Marcos, his wife, and the house speaker. She has denied all allegations. The unprecedented move by the Senate could add fuel to fierce public debate on what is already an emotionally charged issue in the Philippines, with the spectre of discord in the bicameral legislature and more legal action to try to dismiss the case against the popular Duterte. The trial will officially proceed, according to senators, who issued a summons to Duterte to respond to the charges, despite sending the case back to the lower house until a time when a Congress newly-formed after last month's midterm elections is "willing and ready" to pursue the impeachment complaint. Duterte will have 10 days to comply. A new Congress will convene at the end of July. Duterte's office late on Tuesday reiterated an earlier statement that said she was ready to "expose the baselessness of the accusations". "The impeachment process must never be weaponised to harass, silence, or eliminate political opponents," it said. Duterte is the fifth top official in the Philippines to be impeached, only one of whom, Renato Corona, a former Supreme Court chief justice, was convicted.
Middle East Eye
19 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
By threatening the ICC, David Cameron disgraced Britain
By threatening the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, former British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has joined Russian President Vladimir Putin among a small group of unsavoury world leaders who have menaced or bullied the ICC. In plain English, the former foreign secretary (and former prime minister) has been caught red-handed in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The motive for Cameron's appalling conduct: a determination to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, from war crimes charges. In the words of the ICC, these war crimes included 'starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts'. Cameron told ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan that issuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant would be 'like dropping a hydrogen bomb'. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Cameron's contempt for the rule of law and readiness to resort to menace and intimidation is standard procedure from the likes of Putin, Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. But Britain is a country that prides itself on respect for the rule of law. We claim to be part of a moral international order. We ought to be better than that - much better. No excuses The fact that Cameron resorted to menace in order to protect the reputation of Netanyahu, a suspected war criminal, places Britain as a part of a group of gangster nations and rogue states for whom might is right. Cameron has therefore disgraced himself and the Conservative Party - and above all, he has disgraced Britain. There are no excuses. He cannot claim inexperience. Cameron was British prime minister for six years, and he had been brought back as foreign secretary when he sought to intimidate Khan. Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » So far, there has been no response from the Foreign Office or Downing Street to Middle East Eye's revelations about Cameron's despicable behaviour. The Foreign Office declined to comment in response to an MEE request. That silence is deafening. To avoid Britain's reputation being permanently besmirched, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has a duty to come out and make a statement, conveying that he is horrified and disgusted by Cameron's conduct as foreign secretary. He also needs to restate Britain's commitment to the ICC and the values it embodies. This intervention is all the more urgent, because putting pressure on the ICC could constitute a criminal act under British domestic law as well as international law. The Rome Statute that established the ICC does not just prosecute those who commit war crimes. It also criminalises those who seek to prevent war crimes from being prosecuted. The relevant passage of the Rome Statute, Article 70, awards the court jurisdiction over those responsible for 'impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties'. Cameron's threat to 'defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute' falls squarely within ICC jurisdiction. Reckless actions There are also potential consequences under domestic law. Section 54 (1) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 notes: 'A person intentionally committing any of the acts mentioned in article 70.1 (offences against the administration of justice in relation to the ICC) may be dealt with as for the corresponding domestic offence committed in relation to a superior court in England and Wales.' In short, Cameron now finds himself in hot water. One lawyer with whom I spoke last night, while not conversant with all the details, told me that in his judgment, the case for a prosecution is strong. A British foreign secretary tried to subvert the course of justice. Cameron needs to break his silence and to explain himself In Britain, the maximum penalty for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment, though in practice sentences are likely to be much lower. Leaving aside the possible long-term consequences of Cameron's reckless behaviour, the immediate political reverberations are immense. Britain is a country that prides itself on the rule of law. We claim to be part of the rules-based international order. To his eternal credit, Khan, a British citizen, stood up to Cameron's threats. But the inescapable fact remains that a British foreign secretary tried to subvert the course of justice. Cameron needs to break his silence and to explain himself. Meanwhile, Starmer would be well-advised to order an urgent enquiry into the shocking revelation that Cameron sought to intimidate the chief prosecutor of the ICC. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
