Bong Go, Bam Aquino, Bato top 2025 senatorial race
Senator Bong Go led the race with 27.1 million votes, followed by former senator Bam Aquino with 20.9 million votes, and Senator Ronald dela Rosa with 20.7 million votes.
Also making it to the winning circle were ACT-CIS party-list Representative Erwin Tulfo with 17.1 million votes, former senator Francis Pangilinan with 15.3 million, and SAGIP party-list Representative Rodante Marcoleta with 15.2 million.
Completing the top 12 were former senator Panfilo Lacson, former Senate president Vicente Sotto III, Senator Pia Cayetano, Las Piñas City Representative Camille Villar, Senator Lito Lapid, and Senator Imee Marcos.
These newly proclaimed lawmakers will serve a six-year term, playing a key role in crafting national laws, reviewing government policies, and approving national budgets.
Winners are now expected to assume office by June 30.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
13 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Wikipedia's Legal Battle Shapes Online Safety Act Future
A UK court recently ruled against Wikipedia's challenge to the country's Online Safety Act, yet the decision may have set a significant legal precedent. The case, which has been closely monitored by tech companies and legal experts, revolved around the implications of the new rules on platforms like Wikipedia. Despite the court's decision, legal commentators argue that the ruling still marks a pivotal moment in the debate over online regulation and platform accountability. The Online Safety Act, introduced by the UK government, is aimed at regulating harmful content across the internet, with specific focus on protecting users from illegal or harmful material. It mandates that platforms take greater responsibility for content published by users, holding them accountable for addressing and removing material that violates standards, such as hate speech, extremist content, and child exploitation. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, challenged the Act's provisions that would compel platforms to comply with stringent content moderation requirements or face heavy penalties. The platform argued that the new rules posed a direct threat to its operations, particularly its volunteer-driven model of content creation. Wikipedia contended that these regulations would force it to enforce stricter content controls, potentially undermining its core mission of providing an open space for freely shared knowledge. The nonprofit organization also raised concerns over the impact of the rules on its users' freedom of expression, especially when it came to moderating user-generated content in a way that might stifle the platform's core principles. ADVERTISEMENT However, the UK High Court ruled against Wikipedia, finding that the Online Safety Act does not directly inhibit the platform's ability to operate. The ruling stated that the platform must still comply with the law's requirements, particularly those around the removal of harmful content. Yet, the judgment also made it clear that it does not grant authorities a sweeping mandate to impose overly broad restrictions on platforms like Wikipedia. It specifically noted that the ruling did not provide Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, or the Secretary of State with the power to enforce a regime that would substantially hinder the operations of platforms that provide a public good, like Wikipedia. The court's decision was not a clear-cut victory for the UK government, nor was it an outright loss for Wikipedia. Legal experts suggest that while the ruling may have solidified the current interpretation of the Online Safety Act, it also lays the groundwork for potential future legal battles. The court effectively acknowledged the unique nature of platforms like Wikipedia, which operate as both content hosts and facilitators of free expression. This suggests that in future disputes, platforms may be able to raise concerns about overreach and the broader implications of content regulation on their operations. Industry stakeholders have expressed mixed reactions to the ruling. Some argue that the court's stance is a victory for free speech, protecting platforms from government overreach. Others, however, believe that the ruling does not go far enough in shielding platforms from the potential for disproportionate regulatory pressure. Critics contend that the Online Safety Act could pave the way for stricter enforcement mechanisms in the future, which may impact the ability of platforms to balance content moderation with user autonomy. The case also highlights the growing tensions between government regulators, technology companies, and online platforms. Governments worldwide are grappling with how best to address the spread of harmful content online without stifling the free flow of information. The UK's Online Safety Act is one of the most ambitious efforts to tackle this issue, but it also underscores the challenges of regulating the digital space in a way that respects both public safety and fundamental freedoms.
Filipino Times
2 days ago
- Filipino Times
Sotto files bill mandating full public disclosure of key government records
Senate Minority Leader Vicente 'Tito' Sotto III has filed a bill seeking to establish a policy for full public disclosure of government records and transactions involving matters of public interest. Under the proposed 'People's Freedom of Information Act of 2025,' the public will have the right to access information on issues of public concern, in line with promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. 'Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance. To foster accountability, trust, and citizen participation, our Government shall provide ready and complete access to key information to the discerning public,' Sotto said in a statement. The bill requires the release of specific information, including the annual Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of the following officials: • President • Vice President • Cabinet members • Members of Congress • Supreme Court justices • Members of constitutional commissions and other constitutional offices • Armed Forces officers with general or flag ranks Government agencies will also be required to upload certain records on their official websites, with monthly updates. These include registers of transactions, annual budgets, monthly collections and disbursements, summaries of income and expenditures, procurement plans, bid invitations, and procurement contracts. However, sensitive personal details such as race, ethnicity, origin, health records, religion, political affiliation, education, and tax returns will remain classified. Requests may also be denied if releasing the information would endanger national security or harm foreign relations. Agencies will have six months from the law's effectivity to craft their Freedom of Information Manual. Officials who conceal, destroy, alter, or tamper with requested information face penalties of one to six months in prison and fines of ₱10,000 to ₱100,000. 'In this modern world where data is readily available online, information about government transactions, processes and actions shall likewise be accessible to our countrymen as a matter of right,' Sotto said. Members of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives have also refiled their version of the FOI bill, which similarly mandates the disclosure of SALNs of the president, vice president, and other high-ranking officials.
Filipino Times
3 days ago
- Filipino Times
Marcos: SC Ruling on Sara Impeachment Didn't Settle Accountability Issue
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. reiterated that the Supreme Court's decision voiding the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte did not address her accountability as a public official. Speaking to reporters during his state visit to India, Marcos emphasized that the high court's ruling focused solely on procedural issues and not on whether wrongdoing occurred. The Supreme Court, in its July 25 decision, ruled in favor of petitions questioning the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment, citing violations of the one-year ban on multiple complaints and due process concerns. Marcos clarified that the Court neither cleared nor condemned Duterte, but found that the process was mishandled. This was Marcos' first public comment on the unanimous ruling, which nullified the House-approved impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate. He stressed that as an impeachable official himself, he has no role in impeachment proceedings, which are the responsibility of the Court, the Senate, and the House. The Senate has since voted to archive the impeachment case rather than dismiss it outright, allowing space for pending motions for reconsideration before the Supreme Court. Several petitioners, including the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, have filed appeals urging the Court to reverse its decision, arguing that it creates procedural obstacles that weaken accountability for high officials. Legal experts are divided on whether the articles of impeachment can be revived if the Supreme Court reverses itself. Some see the archiving as a safeguard, while others note that the ruling's procedural findings may still block further action. For now, the impeachment case is effectively suspended unless the Court grants the appeals.
