Philippine president's allies poised to take key posts in midterms, poll shows
By Mikhail Flores
MANILA (Reuters) - Senate candidates backed by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr look set to dominate May midterm elections, with a new poll showing them taking three-quarters of available seats, despite attempts to discredit the government over the arrest of former leader Rodrigo Duterte.
Packed with political heavyweights and wielding outsized influence, the Senate has a high profile in the Philippines, where midterm elections for 12 of its 24 seats are closely watched as a barometer of public support for the president.
The Social Weather Stations poll of 1,800 voters was conducted four days after the still-popular Duterte was transferred to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity over a bloody war on drugs that killed thousands of people during his 2016-2022 presidency.
His army of diehard supporters, many online, were quick to portray him as a persecuted hero, framing his arrest as a foreign "kidnapping" facilitated by the Marcos government, which has rejected that.
The May 12 elections have been billed as a proxy battle between the influential Duterte and Marcos families following the acrimonious collapse of their once powerful alliance that propelled Marcos to power in in 2022, with the former president's daughter, Sara Duterte as vice president.
The handover of the elder Duterte to the International Criminal Court was a major blow for a family that has had a stunning change of fortunes, coming only a month after his daughter was impeached by a lower house led by allies of Marcos.
Sara Duterte, who has been tipped as a contender for the 2028 presidency, will go on trial at the Senate later this year and faces removal from her post and a lifetime ban from holding office. The Senators will serve as jurors and to convict Duterte, a two-thirds majority is needed.
The complaint against her stems from allegations she misused public funds, amassed unexplained wealth, and threatened the lives of Marcos, the first lady and the lower house speaker.
Duterte has dismissed the allegations and her father's arrest as politically motivated with the 2028 presidency in mind.
But she still has allies in the Senate and the latest survey indicates two loyalists are likely to be reelected, a former Duterte presidential aide and an ex-police chief who spearheaded the drugs crackdown, which could boost her survival chances.
The May elections will also contest 317 congressional seats and thousands of local posts. Among the candidates is Rodrigo Duterte, running for mayor of his hometown of Davao City, even while detained at The Hague.
Despite fierce criticism over the arrest of the former president, Marcos looks almost certain to consolidate his power in the midterms, according to veteran political analyst and former presidential adviser Ronald Llamas.
"This is now a battle for the government to lose," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hegseth wavers on Russia sanctions, says US should not use ‘every tool' to end Ukraine invasion
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth resisted senators' efforts to secure his support for a bipartisan bill that would sanction Russia for its war on Ukraine, telling an Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday that the US should not use 'every tool at our disposal' to pressure Moscow to stop its assault. Asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) whether Washington 'should use every tool it has at its disposal, including additional sanctions, to pressure Russia to come to the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace for the war in Ukraine,' Hegseth demurred. 'Senator, every tool at our disposal? No,' he said. 'We have a lot of tools in a lot of places.' 'We should be pursuing a cease-fire and a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine at any cost,' Coons responded. ''Peace through strength' means actually using our strength, continuing to support Ukraine, and securing a lasting peace. [Vladimir] Putin will only stop when we stop him.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified Wednesday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. REUTERS Prior to questioning Hegseth, Coons had talked up Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) pending bill to further sanction Russia for its continued resistance to peace in Ukraine. The legislation, backed by 80 senators, would impose sanctions on key Russian officials and economic sectors — and, critically, penalize foreign nations that do business with Moscow. Graham later followed up, urging Hegseth and the administration 'to use that tool to get the attention of China and India.' 'China buys — and India buys — 70% of Russia's oil … If they stop buying cheap Russian oil tomorrow, would that grind Putin's war machine to a halt?' Graham asked, later adding: 'We have an ability, through legislation, to get China and India's attention [and say] that if you keep buying cheap Russian oil to empower Putin to kill Ukrainian children, you're going to lose access to our markets. 'We're not going to evict every Russian from Ukraine, I'm a practical guy,' Graham added. 'But we got to end this war so we don't entice China to take Taiwan, and we don't encourage Iran to think we're just all talk [about] stopping their nuclear ambitions.' 4 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questions Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee hearing to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Defense. AP On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was quietly pushing Graham to water down the bill by allowing waivers to exempt certain people and entities from sanctions and to 'remove the mandatory nature' of the legislation. A White House official told the outlet that the Constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations.' 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' they added. Hegseth did admit Wednesday that Russia is the 'aggressor' in Ukraine and that Chinese President Xi Jinping wants Moscow to 'win' the conflict. However, the secretary declined to answer Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) question about 'which side' he wanted to win the war. 'As we've said time and time again, this president is committed to peace in that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'Ultimately, peace serves our national interests, and we think the interests of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (R) greets Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine before testifying during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11. Getty Images McConnell pushed further, noting that the Russians 'don't seem to be too interested' in peace talks. The former Senate GOP leader also alleged that NATO partners increasing their defense spending at Trump's behest are now wondering 'whether we're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory.' 'I think victory is defined by the people that have to live there, the Ukrainians,' he said. 'And I don't think they're going to ever conclude that victory means basically adopting the Russian views on all this. ' Hegseth responded that 'no one's adopting views,' but added that the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act does not include funding of weapons for Ukraine because 'the budget reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent, and President Trump deserves the credit for that.' 4 Ranking member Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) speaks with subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11, 2025. Getty Images McConnell agreed, noting that he had 'the same complaints' about the Biden administration not pushing hard enough for Europe to fund Ukraine's defense. Still, the Kentuckian insisted that by not standing foursquare behind the Kyiv government, 'it seems to me pretty obvious that America's reputation is on the line.' 'Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' McConnell asked. 'That's the international concern that I have about this, and I think a number of my fellow members share that view.'
USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.
