Philippine prosecutors push for Sara Duterte's conviction, political ban
Prosecutors at
the Philippines ' House of Representatives have asked the Senate to proceed with the trial of impeached Vice-President Sara Duterte, saying she should be convicted and barred from politics.
Dismissing the case is prohibited, they said on Friday, in response to Duterte's move earlier this week asking the Senate, which sits as the impeachment court, to throw out her case. 'The plain language of the constitutional text 'trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed' leaves no room for interpretation and forecloses the filing of a motion to dismiss before the honourable impeachment court,' prosecutors said.
Duterte was impeached by the House in February on allegations that include misusing public funds and plotting to assassinate
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. after their political alliance collapsed. She has denied the allegations.
The prosecutors' action tosses the case back to the Senate, which earlier this month returned the impeachment articles to the House, asking the latter to certify that the complaint did not violate the constitution.
The volatile political situation surrounding Duterte's impeachment case poses a risk for the Southeast Asian economy, which on Thursday cut its economic growth target this year amid heightened global uncertainties.
At least two-thirds of the 24-member Senate need to vote to convict Duterte, a top contender for the 2028 presidential election, when Marcos must step down after a constitutionally limited six-year term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Reaction to Angel Chong's Miss Hong Kong bid should spark reflection
Despite having been part of our lives for a long time, beauty pageants have come in for heavy criticism in recent years for objectifying women and reducing them to being judged only on their outward appearance. Despite reforms aimed at improving social perception and what constitutes 'beauty' , they remain controversial. So, when Angel Chong Nga-ting, a 24-year-old local district councillor, decided to put herself out there and enter the contest for the title of Miss Hong Kong, some in the community lost their mind. Chong has every right to make such choices. She is an adult and can do so without needing to seek approval. Or don't we actually believe it when we tell the girls and women in our lives that they can be whatever they want and to chase their dreams Chong's decision to withdraw from the pageant is probably the result of pressure from her political party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). Veteran political commentator Sonny Lo Shiu-hing said, 'Having a district council member suddenly run for the Miss Hong Kong Pageant does not look good for the party's image and its preparation for the election. From the perspective of the largest political party [in Hong Kong], it expects party members to stick to party discipline.' The problem with this is that, last time I checked, competing to be Miss Hong Kong was still perfectly legal, even for district councillors. The judgment is being passed because Chong's entry 'looks bad' for the DAB's image, party discipline and – according to Chong, who said she pulled out to protect the district council's image – the council itself. There is no question about how Chong's actions have been perceived. However, if people are rejecting her decision because of the superficiality of beauty pageants and how her participation might reflect on those she associates with, aren't her critics just as superficial?
South China Morning Post
5 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
The Lens: Tensions escalate between Cambodia and Thailand
Thoughts from last week Praveen Sathappan Narayanan, 11, Island School Praveen Sathappan Narayanan attends Island School. Photo: Handout Tensions are high between Cambodia and Thailand following the death of a Cambodian soldier in May in a disputed border area between the two countries. I believe the long-term implications of this situation could lead to increased conflict, economic strain from trade restrictions and regional instability. Additionally, it may result in heightened discrimination against Cambodian immigrants in Thailand, exacerbating social issues. To reach a compromise, both countries should engage in bilateral talks to address the situation, possibly involving neutral parties or organisations, such as the United Nations, to help ease tensions. I think Cambodia's decision to take the incident to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was appropriate, as involving a third party could help mitigate tensions. However, I believe Cambodia should have prioritised bilateral talks with Thailand before engaging with the ICJ, as the court's involvement further complicates the situation. Recently, Thailand has imposed border restrictions on Cambodia as a means of exerting economic pressure. At the same time, Cambodia has responded by banning Thai dramas, closing a popular border checkpoint and cutting internet bandwidth from Thailand. I disagree with both countries' actions, as these measures, presented as being in the interest of national welfare, ultimately harm their citizens. Cambodia and Thailand must prioritise immediate dialogue despite their historical disputes. While involvement with the ICJ can provide some relief, constructive dialogue is essential. Trade bans only exacerbate the situation and negatively impact citizens. Collaborative efforts are crucial for fostering peace and stability in the region. Read up on this issue in last week's The Lens Thank you for your participation in The Lens! Thank you for your participation in The Lens! The Lens is a way for students to connect with global issues and topics. It encourages you to think critically and articulate your opinions. The Lens lets us step out of our bubble in Hong Kong and learn about problems around the world. The Lens will not be featured in the summer editions of Young Post. But we are grateful for the dozens of amazing submissions and responses from our Junior Reporters. But don't worry – Young Post always has plenty of opportunities for budding journalists! You can still write for other columns this summer, such as Face Off! If you want to be even more involved, you can apply to become a Junior Reporter using this link. We look forward to seeing more of your writing in the coming school year!
AllAfrica
5 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US loath to drop 'economic bunker buster' on China, India, Russia
US Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that his bill to impose 500% tariffs on every country that imports Russian resources is 'an economic bunker buster against China, India, and Russia' – yet, for all his tough talk, the US is still reluctant to drop it. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration is 'quietly pressuring' the Senate to water down the legislation by turning 'the word 'shall' into 'may' wherever it appears in the bill's text, removing the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands.' The Journal's report was lent credence when Graham himself proposed an exemption for countries that aid Ukraine, thus averting an unprecedented US-EU trade war in the event that his bill passes into law. Trump's remark to Politico in mid-June about how 'sanctions cost us a lot of money' suggest that he's not interested in going this route, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio later adding that sanctions could derail the Ukrainian peace process, although he also didn't rule them out in the future. These are sensible explanations for the United States' reluctance to drop its 'economic bunker buster' on Russia but they don't account for its reluctance to drop it on China and India, which have served as invaluable valves for Russia from the West's sanctions pressure due to their large-scale import of its oil. Graham expects that they'll cut off their purchases if the US threatens them with 500% tariffs but they're unlikely to comply since they know that the US would also harm its own economy through such means. Not only that, but the trade deal that US and China recently agreed to would be jeopardized, as would the ongoing talks with India over a similar such agreement. Trump is pleased with both and doesn't want to rock the boat right now. While he might revert back to his previous tariff pressure if things don't go his way, he could just unilaterally impose more tariffs against either in that scenario, and they probably wouldn't be anywhere near the counterproductive level that Graham's legislation demands. Seeing as how the US is once again trying to 'subordinate India,' which is part of his administration's efforts to reshape South Asian geopolitics, he's more prone to imposing higher tariffs against it instead of China but it's premature to predict that he ultimately will. In any case, the pretext probably wouldn't be energy-related given that he has surprisingly posted that 'China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran' in spite of early February's Executive Order that explicitly aims to 'drive Iran's export of oil to zero.' It would therefore be utterly bizarre for Trump to impose tariffs of any level on India or whoever else for purchasing Russian resources when he now no longer cares about the United States' systemic rival China purchasing oil from none other than Iran, which he just bombed, in defiance of his own decree. The aforementioned calculations make it very unlikely that Trump will drop Graham's 'bunker buster' on either of those two. If his bill should become law, it's likely that a loophole would be found to avoid complying with it. This prediction brings the analysis back around to the future of Graham's 'economic bunker buster.' Quite clearly, the Trump Administration doesn't want him to move it through Congress. He may respect the administration's wishes, thus leading to his bill becoming nothing but bluster. This is especially likely if his team signals that it's already found a loophole to get around it unless he changes the language as reportedly requested. China, India, and Russia, therefore, almost certainly have nothing to worry about.
