Erwin Tulfo takes oath as senator before barangay captain in Quiapo
Tulfo was sworn in by his good friend Barangay Chairperson Johnny Dela Cruz at around 9:00 a.m. in Barangay 307, Zone 30, Quiapo, Manila.
In an interview with reporters, Tulfo said he chose to take his oath before a barangay captain in Quiapo, Manila because he is a devotee of the Black Nazarene.
'Mas pinili ko dito sa barangay, dahil barangay is the first line na nakikita ng tao…ibig sabihin mas malapit ang mga tao sa barangay. So I chose to swear in dito sa aming kaibigan na barangay captain kasi 'yun din 'yung purpose natin, gusto natin na medyo mas mapalapit sa tao, mas mabilis nating maririnig ang kanilang mga reklamo,' Tulfo said.
The incoming senator also said this decision to take oath in a barangay hall is in line with his promise to push for a salary standardization law for barangay officials.
Apart from this, Tulfo reiterated his commitment to review the Rice Tariffication Law, file bills on national land use and PhilHealth benefits reform.
Asked about his preparations for the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Tulfo said he wants to see the pieces of evidence first.
'Maraming sinasabi na guilty si VP Sara, gusto ko makita…kailangan makita 'yung ebidensya,' he said.
'Pag judge ka, dapat neutral ka hanggang sa mabasa mo na lahat, makita mo na lahat,' he added.
Tulfo will be joining his brother Senator Raffy Tulfo in the upper chamber in the 20th Congress after landing fourth in the 2025 senatorial race with over 17 million votes.—AOL, 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
Instead of cash, grant livelihood capital to 4Ps beneficiaries — Erwin Tulfo
Senator Erwin Tulfo has proposed to provide livelihood capital to beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) instead of cash transfer to curb reported abuses. 'If we give them capital, they can use it to start businesses and contribute to the economy. We can provide them enough funds to start a sari-sari store, an eatery, or even engage in online selling,' Tulfo said Sunday in a statement. This after some 4Ps beneficiaries were reportedly caught using their cash grants on gambling and illegal drugs. Tulfo added some 4Ps beneficiaries 'would rather have livelihood capital instead of monthly cash transfer.' 'It is also hard for them to hear that they are being called freeloaders, lazy, and that they do not add value to the country,' the senator said. 'It is also unfair to low-wage earners like security guards, janitors, or house helpers who tighten their belts due to lack of funds but receive nothing from the government, such as 4Ps, since they are not qualified,' he added. The lawmaker said this proposal is one of the topics he aims to deliver in his upcoming meeting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Secretary Rex Gatchalian. However, the date was not disclosed. During the Post-SONA discussion on Tuesday, Gatchalian shared that the President's call to amend the 4Ps law would that would allow those in the program to stay longer than seven years. Gatchalian noted this as a welcome development, as two million Filipinos were about to exit the program in 2026 for reaching the maximum number of years in the program. — Mariel Celine Serquiña/RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days 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
2 days ago
- GMA Network
Palace says Congress' power of purse should not be abused
''Hindi po dapat abusuhin iyong sinasabing power of the purse at maraming magkaroon... kung mayroon mang insertions at hindi mapapakinabangan na tunay," Castro said. Congress's power of the purse should not be abused, Malacañang said on Friday, adding that President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. didn't want congressional insertions that will not benefit the public included in the proposed general appropriations law. Palace Press Officer Usec. Atty. Claire Castro made the remark when asked to react to President Francis "Chiz" Escudero, who stated that the executive branch's National Expenditure Program was subject to changes during the budget process in Congress. ''Hindi po dapat abusuhin iyong sinasabing power of the purse at maraming magkaroon... kung mayroon mang insertions at hindi mapapakinabangan na tunay," Castro said. "Iyan lamang po ang gusto ng Pangulo, kaya gusto niya maging malinis at budget at hangga't maaari iyong bicam conference with regard to the conference dito sa budget, 2026 budget ay bukas sa publiko,'' she added. (The power of the purse should be abused. The President doesn't want insertions that will not benefit the people. The President wants a transparent budget, and as much as possible, the bicameral committee conference on the budget should be open to the public.) Castro said the President and the Cabinet secretaries were involved in the exhaustive preparation of the NEP. "At kung numan po ang nabuo dito, ibig sabihin po, iyan po ang dapat na paglalaanan ng pondo,'' Castro said. (Whatever was mentioned here should be allotted funds.) The NEP or the President's budget is submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives at the start of the appropriations process. It is the basis of Congress's budget hearings to craft the General Appropriations Act, or the national budget for the following year. Marcos, in his State of the Nation Address (SONA 2025) on Monday, said he would return a general appropriations bill that was not in line with the NEP. Escudero said the NEP was not set in stone. 'Ang panukalang budget ay nanggagaling hindi lamang sa executive pero pati sa Kongreso. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay tama na. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay hindi na pwedeng baguhin at tila nakaukit na sa bato,' Escudero said. (The proposed budget comes not only from the executive but also from Congress. Just because it was the executive that outlined everything, all of those are already right and cannot be changed.) 'Ang marapat na dapat baguhin, dapat baguhin dahil 'yung mga kalihim mismo ng Pangulo ay humihiling sa Kongreso ng dagdag o pagbabago sa kani-kanilang budget," he added. "So siguro kung may ganyang uri ng kautusan ang Pangulo dapat pagsabihan din niya ang kanyang mga kalihim na kapag may sinumite ng budget ang DBM para sa kanilang departamento, 'wag na silang humirit pa dahil bago sila makahirit ang pagkukunan ay ibang departamento rin,' Escudero said. (What should be changed, must be changed because the President's cabinet secretaries themselves are asking Congress for an increase or change in their respective budgets. So maybe the President should also tell his secretaries that when the DBM submits a budget for their department, they should stop asking for an increase because the source for that increase will be obtained from the budget of another agency.) Escudero has denied claims that there are billions of pesos worth of insertions in the 2025 national budget. He said the reports were part of a 'demolition job' in connection with his earlier bid to retain his Senate presidency post. Marcos, in his SONA, said that the government would operate under a reenacted budget in 2026 as he warned that he would veto a proposed budget bill that would not be in harmony with his administration's programs and priorities. –NB, GMA Integrated News
