SONA 2025 protesters slam hurdles to VP Sara Duterte impeachment
Several groups marched along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City to call for action from the government as Marcos delivered his fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA).
Former ACT Teachers party-list representative France Castro expressed disappointment over the developments in the vice president's impeachment case.
'Sino ang dapat na sisihin kung bakit nagkakaroon ng delay sa pagpapanagot sa impeachment? Si Marcos, ang liderato ng Senado. Dahil inuuna pa ang mga personal na mga posisyon, personal na mga interes laban sa hustisya. Ang Supreme Court, inuna pa ang kapakanan ni Sara Duterte,' she said.
(Who should be blamed for the delay in impeachment? Marcos, the leadership of the Senate. Because personal positions, personal interests are prioritized over justice. The Supreme Court put benefiting Sara Duterte welfare before it.)
'Hindi tayo titigil hangga't hindi mapatalsik si Sara Duterte. Patalksin si Sara Duterte, i-impeach si Sara Duterte. Tayo yung magsisilbing hukom at gagamitin ang buong lansangan para gawin nating korte. So tayo ay maniningil kay Sara Duterte, [at] kay Marcos na nagpabaya,' Castro added.
(We will not stop until Sara Duterte is ousted. Depose Sara Duterte, impeach Sara Duterte. We will serve as judges and use the streets as our court. So we will blame Sara Duterte, [and] Marcos for his dereliction.)
Kiko Aquino Dee, one of those who filed an impeachment complaint against Duterte, called out the government's slow action on what he called the misappropriation of funds.
'Simpleng ang mga tanong namin. Tama ba ang paglustay ng pera ng DepEd sa kalagitnaan ng isang krisis sa edukasyon? Tama ba ang pagbanta ng karahasan at pagpatay sa kahit sinong mamamayang Pilipino? Imbes na sagutin ang mga tanong na ito, pinaglaruan ng kamara ang impeachment complaint mula Disyembre hanggang Pebrero,' said Dee, referring to the questions of Duterte's handling of the education department's funds when she was secretary, and to her threats against Marcos.
(Our questions are simple. Was it right for the Department of Education to waste money in the middle of an education crisis? Is it right to threaten with violence and kill any Filipino citizen? Instead of answering these questions, the chamber toyed with the impeachment complaint from December to February.)
'Nagpatumpik-tumpik ang Senado mula Pebrero hanggang Hunyo at ginawang mas makitid ng Korte Suprema ang butas ng karayum na kailangan natin daanan para makapit ang hustisya ngayong Hulyo,' he added, in reference to the Supreme Court's ruling that the articles of impeachment against Duterte were unconstitutional.
(The Senate chose to relax from February to June and the Supreme Court narrowed the needle we must pass through to get justice this July.)
'Hanggang ngayon naghuhugas-kamay ang Malacañang dahil ang pagpapanagot sa isang mataas ng opisyal ay hindi raw makakatulong sa iisang Pilipino. Hindi talaga nakakatulong ang impeachment sa mga makapangyarihan. Pero baka nakakalimutan nila, hindi lang sila ang mga Pilipino, Pilipino tayong lahat. Habang hindi napapanagot ang mga katiwalian at impunity, Pilipino ang ninanakawan. Pilipino ang pinapapatay,' Dee added.
(Until now, Malacañang is washing its hands because it claims that holding a high official to account will not help a single Filipino. Impeachment does not really help the powerful. But maybe they forget, they are not the only Filipinos, we are all Filipinos. While corruption and impunity are not held accountable, Filipinos are the ones being robbed. Filipinos are being killed.)
'No bite'
For his part, Bayan president Renato Reyes Jr. said that Marcos' SONA was 'all bark but no bite.'
'The tough talk on corruption ignored the most crucial corruption issue today: the impeachment of the Vice President and the abuse of so-called confidential funds. Mr. Marcos had nothing to say about the elephant in the room—the House impeached the Vice President, the Senate stalled the trial and the Supreme Court derailed the trial. How could the president not comment on a matter involving massive corruption, conflict among the different branches of government and the miscarriage of justice? How will we even take his anti-corruption rhetoric seriously?' he said in a statement.
The SC's ruling is in relation to the consolidated petition filed by Duterte, lawyer Israelito Torreon, and others seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her as null and void.
Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting clarified that the high tribunal "is not absolving" Duterte from the charges against her, but added that "any subsequent impeachment complaint" may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.
This is a day after the one-year anniversary of House of Representatives impeachment of Duterte, including its endorsement of the fourth complaint that constituted the Articles of Impeachment.
The SC decision is immediately executory. However, Ting said the House of Representatives may still file a motion for reconsideration.
Religious groups join action
Aside from progressive groups, members of the religious sector also joined the rally as they sought accountability from the Marcos administration on various issues.
Reverend Carleen Nomorosa, ordained deacon of United Methodist Church, was joined by more than 90 seminarians and pastors.
'Nandito kami dahil naniniwala kami na dapat i-convict si Sara Duterte at dapat singilin si Marcos sa kanyang pananahimik…at sa kanyang hindi pagtugon sa mga hinaing ng taong bayan,' she told reporters.
(We are here because we believe that Sara Duterte should be convicted and Marcos should be charged for his silence...and his failure to respond to the grievances of the people.)
For her part, Sister Shirley Mabunga of Missionaries of Perpetual Help said that joining the protests means being in one with the plight of the masses.
'Bilang isang taong simbahan, nakikiisa kami rito para sa boses ng mga mamayan na humihingi ng katarungan at katotohan dahil sa mga nangyaring issues sa ating bansa, dahil na rin sa mga dinanas na kahirapan ng ating mga kababayan lalo ng mga nakalipas na bagyo,' she told GMA News Online.
(As a church person, we are united here for the voice of the people who are asking for justice and truth because of the issues that happened in our country, also because of the hardships suffered by our countrymen especially in the past typhoons.) — BM, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
5 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider VP Sara Duterte impeachment ruling
Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita 'Ging' Deles, Yvonne Jereza of Magdalo Partylist, and Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudia, convenor of Tindig Pilipinas, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on Friday, August 1, 2025, on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. Photo by Danny Pata Some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam. 'Naniniwala po kami na maling-mali ang naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema (we believe that the reasons of the SC is very wrong),' petitioners Sylvia Estrada Claudio said in an ambush interview. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. However, Claudio said their complaint was not initiated. This was echoed by petitioner Teresita Quintos Deles, who said that the SC previously ruled that complaints are only initiated once deferred to the House Committee on Justice. 'By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case na sinabi na ang initiation ay kapag na defer lang sa Justice committee. Since hindi iyon nangyari, wala talagang prior initiation,' she said. (By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case where it was stated that initiation happens when it is merely deferred in the Justice committee. Since that did not happen, there was really no prior initiation.) The other petitioners are Akbayan Representative Percival Cendaña, Eugene Gonzales, Yvonne Jereza, Alicia Murphy, and Filomena Cinco. Claudio called on the Senate to continue the impeachment trial. 'Naniniwala din po kami na nag overstep ng kaunti ang ating SC dahil nag simula na ang Senado. At sa amin hong pananaw ay malinaw naman ho sa Konstitusyon na ang Senado ang may karapatan, at nag simula na po sila,' she said. (We also believe that our SC overstepped a bit because the Senate had already started. And in our view, it is clear in the Constitution that the Senate has the right, and they had already begun.) 'Sa atin pong mamamayan, nananawagan po kami na pwede naman pong i-criticize ang opinyon ng kahit sinong mataas na opisyal o institusyon, kasama na po ang SC,' she added. (To our fellow citizens, we are calling on you that it is okay to criticize the opinion of any high-ranking official or institution, including the SC.) — BAP, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- GMA Network
Palace on increase in Marcos rating: Public sees his work
Malacañang on Friday welcomed the boost in the trust and performance ratings of President Ferdinand ''Bongbong'' Marcos Jr. for the 2nd Quarter of 2025. Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said the public is seeing that the President is working for the country. ''Unang-una, malamang po nakikita na po ng taumbayan kung ano po talaga ang ginagawang trabaho ng Pangulo. At nakakatuwa at nakikita na po nila kung gaano po kasipag ang Pangulo para sa taumbayan at para sa bayan,'' Castro said. However, she clarified that Marcos is not after the figures or ratings. ''Ngunit sasabihin po natin muli ang Pangulo po ay hindi maaapektuhan ng anumang numero. Pero siyempre po ito ay ikinagagalak, at kung tumataas man po ang approval at trust rating Pangulo ay nakakatuwa po ito dahil nakikita na nagtatrabaho. Mas mahirap po kasi na bumababa ang rating pero nagtatrabaho; pero mas mabigat iyong hindi nagtatrabaho pero tumataas ang rating,'' she added. Based on the Tugon ng Masa survey conducted from July 12 to 17, OCTA Research said Marcos received a 64% trust rating, a four-percentage-point increase from his previous one. His performance rating also got a three-point increase, climbing up to 62% within the survey's margin of error. OCTA also said Marcos reversed the downward trend in ratings that he experienced since the 4th Quarter of 2024 and received the highest trust and performance ratings among the top officials surveyed for this quarter. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
