Sara Duterte: I welcome impeachment trial to clear my name
Vice President Sara Duterte said that she supports moving forward with her impeachment trial, calling it an opportunity to answer allegations and clear her name.
Duterte expressed agreement with a recent survey showing 88 percent of Filipinos support the continuation of impeachment proceedings against her.
'I totally agree,' she said. 'Kasama ako doon sa 88 percent na iyan… Thankful ako sa opportunity na malinis ang pangalan ko at masagot ang mga akusasyon sa akin.'
(Translation: I'm one of the 88 percent. I'm thankful for the opportunity to clear my name and respond to the accusations against me.)
Despite this, Duterte has a pending petition before the Supreme Court seeking to block the basis of the impeachment on constitutional grounds.
The vice president is accused of misusing confidential funds and making public threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.
Originally set for late May, the impeachment trial has been postponed to June 11 after Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero delayed the convening of the Senate as an impeachment court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Filipino Times
13 hours ago
- Filipino Times
DMW celebrates 30 years of honoring OFWs, reaffirms pledge to safeguard rights and opportunities
The Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) paid tribute to the resilience and dedication of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) as it marked the 30th Migrant Workers Day, reaffirming its commitment to enhancing opportunities and protection for OFWs and their families, in line with President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s directive. During the kick-off ceremony, DMW Officer-in-Charge Undersecretary Bernard P. Olalia emphasized that the celebration is not only a reflection on the past three decades but also a strong affirmation of the agency's continued promise to serve OFWs more efficiently and compassionately. 'This occasion is both a look back on 30 years of service and a renewed commitment to deliver faster, more heartfelt service to every OFW,' Olalia said. The weeklong celebration, leading up to Migrant Workers Day, features a wide array of activities meant to honor OFWs, recognized as modern-day heroes for their critical contributions to the development of both the Philippines and their host countries. Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) Secretary Dante 'Klink' Ang II, the event's guest of honor, highlighted the importance of a collaborative approach in serving overseas Filipinos. He referenced key government efforts such as the Interagency Council Against Trafficking and the Interagency Council on the Rights of Overseas Filipinos as vital to improving safety and services for Filipinos abroad. Ang also acknowledged the bravery of OFWs and introduced Philippine Schools Overseas (PSOs), which serve Filipino communities abroad by promoting diaspora engagement and empowering migrants and their families. The celebration began with the launch of a photo exhibit showcasing 30 years of labor migration milestones, alongside events such as the National Reintegration Network Serbisyo Fair and the Balikbayan Bazaar. Health services, wellness programs, and entertainment activities will be held at the DMW Central Office in Mandaluyong and at all regional and overseas offices throughout the week. Migrant Workers Day, celebrated every June 7 under Republic Act No. 8042, honors the enduring sacrifices and achievements of OFWs. The DMW encourages all OFWs and their families to participate and benefit from the free services and events happening from June 2 to 7.
Filipino Times
2 days ago
- Filipino Times
Financial aid continues for Al Barsha Fire victims, families in UAE and Philippines
The Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) recently updated on their ongoing assistance programs for Filipinos working abroad, especially those in the UAE. DMW Secretary Hans Cacdac visited Dubai and Abu Dhabi to meet with immigration authorities and discuss support for overseas Filipinos. Around 2,000 Filipinos who availed of the UAE amnesty earlier this year received help, coordinated by the UAE government, immigration offices, and Philippine officials. Secretary Cacdac expressed gratitude to the UAE for this partnership and assistance. The DMW also met with Filipinos detained in the UAE to assure them of help in returning home and reintegration support once released. This is part of President Marcos's directive to aid Filipinos abroad, including those affected by incidents like the Al Barsha Fire. More than 500 fire victims have been assisted so far, with financial help provided to families, including two Filipinos who sadly passed away. A second round of aid will be given to the victims' families in the Philippines, acknowledging the trauma and ongoing struggles they face. In addition, the DMW facilitated free vaccinations for 29 children of Filipinos working in the UAE. This initiative was done in cooperation with a local clinic called Grand Infinity and the Philippine Labor Attache in Dubai. The recent 127th Philippine Independence Day celebration in the UAE highlighted the strong ties between the Philippines and the UAE. Secretary Cacdac met with UAE Minister of Tolerance Sheikh Nayan Bin Mubarak Al-Nayan, praising the resilience and spirit of Filipinos living in the UAE.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Fundamental rights shouldn't depend on your ZIP code
Ronald Brownstein, Tribune News Service One of the most powerful trends in modern politics is the growing separation between red and blue states. Now, the Supreme Court looks poised to widen that chasm. Over roughly the past decade, virtually all Republican-controlled states have rolled back rights and liberties across a broad front: banning abortion; restricting voting rights; censoring how teachers can discuss race, gender and sexual orientation; and prohibiting transition care for transgender minors. No Democratic-leaning state has done any of those things. The result is the greatest gulf since the era of Jim Crow state-sponsored segregation between the rights guaranteed in some states and denied in others. The Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority has abetted this separation. Its decisions eviscerating federal oversight of state voting rules (in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case) and rescinding the national right to abortion (in 2022's Dobbs decision) freed red states to lurch right on both fronts. In oral arguments this month, the GOP-appointed justices appeared ready to push the states apart in a new way: by restricting federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. Concern about nationwide injunctions has been growing in both parties. Such injunctions remained relatively rare during the two-term presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but Trump faced 64 of them in his first term and Joe Biden 14 in his first three years in office, according to a Harvard Law Review tabulation. Through the first 100 days of Trump's second term, federal courts have already imposed 25 nationwide injunctions against him. Trump has been uniquely vulnerable to this judicial pushback because he has moved so aggressively to challenge—and, in many instances, disregard — previously understood limits on presidential authority. But there's no question that each party now views nationwide injunctions as a critical weapon to stymie a president from the other party. Coalitions of red and blue state attorneys general have become especially reliant on the tactic. Each side has grown adept at challenging the incumbent president's actions primarily in district and circuit courts dominated by appointees from their own party, notes Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who tracks the state AG lawsuits. This aggressive forum shopping usually produces the desired result. Looking at the district court level, the Harvard analysis found that judges appointed by presidents of the other party imposed almost 95% of the nationwide injunctions directed against Biden or Trump in his first term. At the appellate court level, Adam Feldman, who founded the Empirical SCOTUS blog, calculated that the conservative 5th Circuit was much more likely to block presidential actions under Biden than Trump, while the liberal 9th circuit was, to an even greater extent, more likely to block Trump than Biden. These stark outcomes capture how the Supreme Court's verdict on injunctions could widen the distance between the states. If the Supreme Court hobbles their use, it will virtually guarantee that more federal courts simultaneously issue conflicting decisions to uphold or invalidate presidential actions. Trump's executive orders would be enforced in some places and not others. In the most extreme example—which plainly troubled the Court at its hearing—children born in the US to undocumented parents potentially would become citizens in some states, but not in others, depending on which courts allow Trump to overrule the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court would surely try to resolve more of these disputes, since conflicting appellate rulings are a big reason why it accepts cases. But the court would face practical limits on how many such disagreements it could referee. Across Trump's first term and Biden's four years combined, the Supreme Court considered only about 1 in 10 cases brought by attorneys general from the party out of power, Nolette calculates. Even if the court addressed more cases through its emergency docket, banning nationwide injunctions would likely result in more unresolved conflicts among the circuits on core questions of both presidential power and basic civil rights and liberties. That would harden the red-blue divide. Though the overlap isn't perfect, most Democratic-leaning states are covered by federal circuits in which Democratic presidents appointed most of the judges, and vice versa for Republican-leaning states. (The principal reason for this correlation is a Senate tradition that makes confirmation votes for federal district court nominees contingent on their home-state Senators' approval; the Senate applied that rule to federal appeals court nominees as well until 2018.) The protection of Democratic-leaning circuit courts could allow blue states to mostly fend off Trump's attempts to erase basic rights (like birthright citizenship) within their borders, or blunt his efforts to force them to adopt conservative social policies (as he is attempting by threatening their federal funding.) Conversely, the receptivity of Republican-leaning circuit courts would likely allow Trump to impose his agenda across red America, except in the (probably rare) cases when the Supreme Court intervenes to stop him. The nation's legal landscape would trend even more toward a patchwork. 'We've seen a huge divergence in red and blue states in policy and law ... and a potential ban on nationwide injunctions would just accelerate this trend,' said Jake Grumbach, a University of California at Berkeley political scientist who has studied the growing differences among the states. In a long arc spanning roughly from the Supreme Court decision banning segregated schools in 1954 to its ruling establishing nationwide access to same-sex marriage in 2015, the courts and Congress mostly nationalized civil rights and limited states' ability to curtail them. Now we are reverting toward a pre-1960s nation in which your rights largely depend on your zip code. Nationwide judicial injunctions are a flawed tool, and in a perfect world the two parties would collaborate on bipartisan reforms to limit them for future presidents. At some point, it would make sense to consider proposals that have emerged in both parties to require that a three-judge panel, rather than a single judge, approve any nationwide injunction. But to abruptly ban them now risks further unraveling the seams of an already fraying America.
