Group lauds House panel's call for charges vs. Sara Duterte over confi funds
The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) expressed support Wednesday for a House committee's recommendation to file charges against Vice President Sara Duterte and other officials over the alleged misuse of confidential funds in the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
In a statement on Wednesday, ACT described the report by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability and its subsequent adoption by the House plenary as a "crucial step toward upholding integrity and transparency in public service."
The recommended charges against Duterte relate to technical malversation, perjury, bribery, and plunder.
ACT said the proposed charges "represent a significant stride toward holding public officials accountable for corruption, plunder, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violations of the Constitution."
The teachers' group renewed its call to abolish confidential and intelligence funds across all civilian government agencies.
"These unaccountable and discretionary funds must instead be rechanneled toward strengthening social services, increasing the salaries of government workers, and expanding support for the agricultural sector," ACT said.
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives adopted the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability's report recommending charges against Duterte and other officials.
Speaking at the House plenary, committee chair Manila Representative Joel Chua noted that exhaustive deliberations were held regarding obstruction of inquiry, misuse of confidential funds, and interference and bribery, among others.
The recommendations were based on the committee's investigation into the alleged misuse of confidential funds amounting to P500 million in the OVP and P112.5 million in the DepEd from 2022 to 2023.
The House plenary's decision came on the same day that the Senate convened as an impeachment court to try Duterte over alleged misuse of confidential funds and other high crimes.
Duterte has denied the allegations leveled against her. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
ICC prosecutor asks tribunal to dismiss Duterte's challenge of jurisdiction
"Irrespective of the interpretation of articles 11 to 13, article 127(2) can only be correctly interpreted to preclude a withdrawing state party depriving the court of the exercise of its jurisdiction, if such a matter is already under consideration before the withdrawal becomes effective," the prosecution's submission dated June 10 and signed by deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has asked the tribunal to dismiss former President Rodrigo Duterte's challenge to the ICC's jurisdiction over his case. Duterte is now detained in the The Hague Penitentiary on charges of crimes against humanity in connection with the killings under his war on drugs when he was mayor of Davao City and when he was president of the Philippines. "Irrespective of the interpretation of articles 11 to 13, article 127(2) can only be correctly interpreted to preclude a withdrawing state party depriving the court of the exercise of its jurisdiction, if such a matter is already under consideration before the withdrawal becomes effective," the prosecution's submission dated June 10 and signed by deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang. "In this case, the prosecutor's initiation of a preliminary examination was sufficient for this purpose, both as a matter of law (given that a preliminary examination is a statutory proceeding, which is a precondition to opening an investigation) but in any event in the particular circumstances," it added. "For all the reasons above, the challenge should be dismissed, and the court's exercise of jurisdiction over Mr Duterte should be affirmed," the prosecution said. Article 127 (2) of the Rome Statute, which governs the ICC, reads, "A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued." "Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under considerationby the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective." According to Duterte's lawyers, the preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction in the situation of the Philippines were not met at the time the pre-trial chamber authorized the opening of an investigation on September 15, 2021. "The Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute became effective on 17 March 2019. When the former Prosecutor filed her request, and the pre-trial chamber issued its decision, more than two years later," Duterte's camp said in its submission. "As a consequence, all procedural steps taken in the Situation and, subsequently, in the case against Mr Rodrigo Roa Duterte, lack legal foundation and should be nullified forthwith," it added. The prosecution said that Duterte's defense said that the Rome Statute made the ICC's jurisdiction conditional not only on the Philippines' status as a state party when the alleged crimes were committed but also when the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction was triggered according to Article 13(c) of the Statute. The defense added that Article 127(2) allowed the court to be deprived of jurisdiction by a withdrawal in the present circumstances. "The chamber should reject both defense arguments, which misinterpret the relevant provisions of the statute, and find that the court lawfully exercises jurisdiction over Mr. Duterte," the prosecution said. The ICC's Office of the Public Counsel for Victims has also asked the tribunal to dismiss former President Rodrigo Duterte's challenge regarding the tribunal's jurisdiction. advertisement ICC Principal Counsel Paolina Massida pointed out that the Philippines' withdrawal has no legal effect as the prosecutor's preliminary examination started even before the withdrawal took effect. 'The preliminary examination conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor in the Situation in the Republic of the Philippines must be considered as 'a matter' that was 'already under the consideration of the Court' prior to the date on which the State's withdrawal became effective and thus the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over the case against Mr Duterte,' according to the 27-page document dated June 9. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
Dela Rosa, Tolentino must inhibit as senator-judges in VP Sara impeachment trial —Monsod
One of the authors of the 1987 Constitution believes Senators Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa and Francis Tolentino should inhibit themselves from sitting as senator-judges after they sought to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. According to Ian Cruz's report in '24 Oras' on Thursday, lawyer Christian Monsod said the two senators must recuse themselves from the impeachment trial following statements both have made. 'I think they should, Senator Bato and Senator Tolentino, they should think about recusing themselves…The source of legitimacy is independence. If they're incapable of independent thinking, I think they should withdraw and say, you know, we're not participating,' he said. Dela Rosa earlier called for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint even without undergoing trial. 'I respectfully move that in view of constitutional infirmities and questions on the jurisdiction and authority of the 20th Congress, the verified impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte be dismissed,' he said. Meanwhile, Tolentino said the trial is considered 'functionally dismissed' if it extends beyond June 30. 'If we cannot conclude the trial before June 30, 2025, we must recognize this impeachment case as functionally dismissed by constitutional operation,' he said. GMA Integrated News reached out to Tolentino for comment. Dela Rosa, on the other hand, said he will not inhibit from participating in the impeachment trial as he does not see anything wrong with their call for its dismissal. For his part, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president Domingo Cayosa said the impeachment court is different from the regular courts. 'Dito ho kasi sa Senate impeachment court is a class by itself. They have their own rules,' he said. Cayosa added that inhibiting someone from acting as senator-judge in the trial won't be easy. 'Maaari pero pagbobotohan nila 'yan ulit and it will be very contentious. Wala kasing specific provision doon, unlike the rules of court and many other rules of administrative bodies,' he said. (They can vote on that and it will be very contentious. Because there's no specific provision on that unlike the rules of court and many other rules of administrative bodies.) But Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said that they cannot stop anyone if he decides to inhibit from the impeachment trial. 'Desisyon nila kung magi-inhibit o magre-recuse sila. Hindi 'yan subject matter of vote…Walang ganoong klaseng procedure o proseso sa impeachment court man o sa regular court,' he said. (That's their decision if they will inhibit or recuse. That's should not be a subject matter of vote…There's no such procedure whether in the impeachment court or in the regular court.) In the event a senator allied with Duterte inhibits from the trial, Paulo Tamase of the University of the Philippines College of Law said, 'Ang requirement sa Saligang Batas is two-thirds of all of the members of the Senate. Majority is based on who votes, that is a rule that applies to the courts. Halimbawa, may mag-recuse na isa, 22 na lang ba bibilangin natin o out of 24. Hindi 'yan klaro sa Saligang Batas. Possible naman na may mag-recuse talaga.' (The requirement under the Constitution is there should be two-thirds of the members of the Senate. So the majority is based on who votes and that applies to the courts. For example, someone recused, so does it mean we only have 22 out of 24. That was not clear in the Constitution. But it's really possible that someone would recuse.) —Vince Angelo Ferreras/RF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate OKs priority bills before adjourning sine die
Several legislative priorities of the Marcos administration were ratified by the Senate before the 19th Congress adjourned sine die on Wednesday night. These included the bicameral conference committee reports on the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act and the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, which were both listed as 'top priority' measures of the Legislative-Executive Development Council (LEDAC). The ratified bicam report on the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act came from Senate Bill No. 2826 and House Bill No. 8937. According to Senator JV Ejercito, the reconciled version allows a five percent royalty based on gross output on mines operating within mineral reservation and a 5-tier royalty rate ranging from one percent to five percent based on margin from metallic mining operations for those outside mineral reservations. With the reforms in large-scale mining, the senator believes the government would benefit from an additional P6 billion worth of revenues. Senator Risa Hontiveros, however, opposed the measure, saying that it rejected amendments on increasing royalties for indigenous communities affected by mining, and imposing an export tax to fund the National Industrialization Program. Meanwhile, the ARROW Act was ratified by the upper chamber through the bicam report on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2821 and House Bill No. 6571. Senator Mark Villar, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said that the measure is important in addressing the right-of-way issues that delay government infrastructure projects. 'Many projects have failed to meet their target completion dates due to unresolved right-of-way delays. Given these challenges, we welcome the amendment of the existing right-of-way law. The ARROW Act introduces key reforms to make the law more responsive to the evolving infrastructure landscape,' Villar said. The Senate also ratified the bicam report seeking to extend the term of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials to four years. The report also postpones the 2025 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections from December 2025 to the first Monday of November 2026 Also ratified by the Senate on Wednesday night were bicam reports on the following: Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy Act (Senate Bill No. 2982 and House Bill No. 11358); An Act amending Sections 134 and 168 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (Senate Committee Report No. 581 and House Bill No. 10535); Philippine Nuclear Energy Safety Act (Senate Bill No. 2899 and House Bill No. 9293); and Career Progression System for Public School Teachers and School Leaders Act (Senate Bill No. 3000 and House Bill No. 10270) — BM, GMA Integrated News
