Palace hits VP Sara: You don't know the law on rainwater collection
At a press briefing, Castro pointed out that it seemed the Vice President does not know the law regarding rainwater collection, adding that Duterte mocked the President's suggestion.
''Unang-una po, kinutya niya ang suhestiyon na ito ng Pangulo na ipunin ang tubig-ulan. Marahil ay hindi po niya batid ang batas na ito, hindi po ito bago kaya nakapagtataka po na mayroon tayo na Bise Presidente pero hindi po niya alam ang batas patungkol po dito sa rainwater collectors – mayroon na po itong batas, Republic Act Number 6716, ito pa po ay noong March 17, 1989 – An Act Providing for the Construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of Existing Water Wells in All Barangays in the Philippines,'' Castro said.
(First of all, he mocked the suggestion of the President to collect rainwater. Maybe she doesn't know the law. It's surprising that she doesn't know, we have a law regarding rainwater collectors. This is Republic Act Number 6716 or An Act Providing for the Construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of Existing Water Wells in All Barangays in the Philippines.)
''So, nakakapagtaka po talaga na wala po yatang kalam-alam ang Bise Presidente patungkol po sa rainwater collection system at ang pinapalabas lamang niya ay pag-iipon ng tubig sa timba,'' she added.
(It's surprising that the Vice President doesn't know anything about the rainwater collection system and she just knows how to collect water using buckets.)
To recall, during Marcos' visit to the Department of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD)-National Resource Operations Center last July 18, the President tried drinking water from the agency's family water filtration kit—which could be used in areas with limited access to clean water in times of disasters.
''Yung tinesting namin, 'yun 'yung balde na mayroong filter na kahit anong klaseng tubig, 'wag lang maalat, pero kahit na iba, basta fresh water, kahit hindi masyadong malinis, pwedeng ilagay sa balde, pwedeng inumin. Idadaan lang doon sa filter na 'yun,' Marcos said.
(We tested the basin that has a filter. Any kind of water—fresh water not salt water—even if it's not clean, you can put it in the basin and you can drink it. It just has to go through the filter.)
In an interview at The Hague on Monday, Vice President Duterte was asked about the suggestion of Marcos to store floodwater and reuse it. She then said floodwater should be collected and delivered to the Palace so the Chief Executive can drink it.
'Ipunin po natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para po may mainom siya,' she said.
(Let's collect it and deliver it to Malacañang so that he can drink it.)
'Ganoon na po ang gagawin natin—ipunin natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para meron silang mainom doon,' she added.
(That's what we'll do—we'll collect floodwater and then deliver it to Malacañang so that they have something to drink.)
Meanwhile, Castro also slammed the Vice President for criticizing the government's response on floods, saying that Duterte is not in the country to know the measures of the administration in addressing the issue.
''Unang-una po ay hindi naman po talaga malalaman marahil ni Bise Presidente kung ano po ang pagpi-prepare ng administrasyon patungkol po dito sa Bagyong Crising dahil wala po siya sa bansa at nagbabakasyon siya sa The Hague. Dahil ang mga pagpupulong na ito na kasama po, bago po umalis ang Pangulong Marcos papuntang US, hindi po rin niya ito malamang nakita at nabalitaan,'' Castro said.
(First of all, she wouldn't know the preparations of the administration on Crising because she is not here and she's on vacation at The Hague. She didn't hear or lean about the meetings before President Marcos left for the US.)
''At muli, wala po ang kaniyang presensiya sa Pilipinas para husgahan kung anuman ang naging trabaho ng Pangulo at ng administrasyon at ng mga concerned agencies patungkol po dito sa Bagyong Crising,'' she added.
(Her presence is not here to judge whatever work the President and the administration did as regards Tropical Cyclone Crising.) — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
14 hours ago
- GMA Network
OCTA poll: 80% of Filipinos want VP Sara to face impeachment trial
Majority of Filipinos believe that Vice President Sara Duterte should face an impeachment trial to answer the charges against her, results of a survey conducted by OCTA Research showed. The July 2025 Tugon ng Masa (TNM) Survey, released on Sunday, showed that 80% of respondents answered in the affirmative when asked if they thought Duterte should face trial. There were 14% who disagreed, while the remaining 7% were undecided or refused to answer. Majority support for the trial was seen across all regions: 87% in the National Capital Region, 77% in balance Luzon, 92% in the Visayas, and 69% in Mindanao. This was also the case across socio-economic classes: 80% for Classes A, B, C, and D, and 78% for Class E. For those who agreed that Duterte should face the impeachment trial, the most commonly cited reason, with 59% of respondents, was that she should address the charges, clear her name, and prove herself worthy of her position. Other reasons include a belief in the charges with 21%, and the view that facing trial is necessary for her to remain eligible to run in the 2028 elections with 16%. Among those who opposed a trial, 44% said the issue is a political conflict between the camps of Duterte and President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr., whom she ran alongside with in the 2022 national elections. Other cited a belief in her integrity and disbelief in the allegations with 33%, while 19% said she should focus instead on serving the nation. The survey fieldwork was conducted using face-to-face interviews from July 12 to July 17, 2025, a week before the Supreme Court released its decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. The survey polled 1,200 male and female respondents aged 18 and above. It has a margin of error of ±3 % at a 95% confidence level. Subnational estimates carry a ±6% margin of error for Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Out of the respondents, 97% said they have heard, read, or watched anything about the impeachment complaint, while 2% said they were unaware. The recent SC decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her null and void Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
16 hours ago
- GMA Network
House to appeal SC ruling voiding Sara Duterte Articles of Impeachment
The House of Representatives is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. In a video message released on Sunday, House of Representatives spokesperson Atty. Priscilla Marie 'Princess' Abante said the House has studied the SC decision, and found that the bases for it were alarming. 'Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred or unconstitutional ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na record ng Kamara,' she said. (The House, after thorough study, will file a motion for reconsideration because the decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional is based on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.) This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and imposing a one-year ban, as it said these violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. According to Abante, the decision claimed that articles were transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote, which she said was 'categorically false' and wrong, as she said the plenary voted on February 5, 2025, with at least a third of the House members, as detailed in House Journal 36. Abante also said the High Court wrongly claimed that the House did not act on the first three impeachment complaints, as she said these were acted on and were archived on the same day, prior to the chamber adjourning session. 'Ang pinakabatayang saligan ng desisyon kung saan umikot ang mga legal pronouncement ng Korte ay mali. Hindi isinama ang plenary vote, mali ang pagbasa sa timeline ng mga kilos ng Kamara, at mas pinaniwalaan ang isang news article kaysa sa House Journal at opisyal na record na isinumite mismo sa Korte,' she said. (The fundamental basis of the decision, on which the Court's legal pronouncements were anchored, is flawed. The plenary vote was excluded, the timeline of the House's actions was misread, and a news article was given more weight than the House Journal and official records that were submitted to the Court itself.) Abante likewise said the SC gave new rules that are not in the Constitution nor in the governing rules of the House of Representatives citing due process, even if the chamber followed previous rulings of the High Court. 'It should also be said, kung due process at opportunity to be heard ang usapan, ilang beses nang naimbitahan si Vice President Sara Duterte sa mga pagdinig ng Committee upang siya ay mabigyan ng pagkakataong ipaliwanag ang kaniyang panig, ngunit nananatili siyang tikom ang kaniyang bibig,' Abante said. (It should also be said that when it comes to due process and the opportunity to be heard, Vice President Sara Duterte was invited multiple times to the Committee hearings to give her a chance to explain her side, but she has consistently remained silent.) 'It is for these reasons the House will be filing a motion for reconsideration. We remain hopeful that once facts are corrected, the Court will arrive at a different and more just conclusion,' she added. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
17 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate impeachment court to vote on whether to proceed with VP Sara trial
The Senate impeachment court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the Supreme Court's ruling on the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, its spokesperson said Sunday. According to Senate Impeachment Court spokesperson Regie Tongol, the body received the email transmittal of the SC decision on Friday evening, July 25, 2025, and will vote on it moving forward. 'Yes, as part of the usual deliberative process of any collegial body based on Senate rules,' he said in a Viber message to reporters over the weekend. This comes as the SC ruled unanimously to declare that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional and violate the right to due process. SC spokesperson Camille Ting noted, however, that the SC is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. The decision is in relation to the petition filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon, among others, seeking to declare the Artiles of Impeachment against her null and void Following the announcement of the decision, Tongol said the Senate Impeachment Court is 'duty-bound' to respect the finality of rulings issued by High Court. 'The Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, has always acted in deference to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a co-equal branch of government, we are duty-bound to respect the finality of rulings issued by the High Court,' he said then. Senators have since aired contrasting opinions on the decision, with some saying the Senate can still choose to proceed with the trial. Lawyer and Constitutional law expert Domingo 'Egon' Cayosa on Saturday said the Senate may still opt to proceed with the trial, as it may assert its 'exclusive power' with regard to impeachment matters. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. The fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, was later on transmitted to the Senate. Duterte, for her part, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' — BM, GMA Integrated News
