Malacañang to Roque: tracking fugitives is a duty, not political persecution
Malacañang rejected former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque's claim that the government is wasting public resources by pursuing him, stressing that tracking fugitives is a lawful responsibility, not political persecution.
Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said Roque appears to be the only one insisting on that narrative, noting that even his former ally Salvador Panelo has distanced himself from such claims.
'Mukhang si Atty. Harry Roque na lang naman ang naniniwala sa kaniyang pananaw na may political persecution,' Castro said in a briefing.
he added: 'Ang kaniyang pagsama-sama sa mga Duterte ay ginagawa niyang panangga para patunayan na mayroong political persecution, pero kahit na ang kaniyang dating naging kaalyado ay hindi naniniwala sa kaniyang mga tinuran.'
Castro pointed out that if Roque were genuinely concerned about government funds, he should have acted more responsibly during his time in office.
'Ang paghahanap ng isang fugitive ay hindi pag-aaksaya ng oras… Kung siya ay concerned sa pondo ng bayan, dapat noon pa 'yan—noong 2016 pa,' she said. 'At kung sinasabi nga niya na siya ay concerned sa pondo ng bayan, hindi ba mas maganda kung magboluntaryo na siyang umuwi rito?'
Roque, who is reportedly seeking asylum in the Netherlands, faces a standing arrest warrant from the Pampanga Regional Trial Court for qualified human trafficking. He is charged alongside Cassandra Ong and at least 48 others in connection with an alleged offshore gaming scam linked to Lucky South 99.
The Department of Justice earlier said it is preparing to request an Interpol red notice to locate and arrest Roque. DOJ spokesperson Mico Clavano affirmed that the government remains committed to pursuing justice for the victims.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 days ago
- The National
Google antitrust case: AI takes centre stage in closing arguments
During closing arguments in the penalty portion of the Google antitrust trial on Friday, the judge asked a question about the fast-moving tech world that will likely give pause to legal and business experts. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Alphabet-owned Google liable for maintaining a monopoly and exploiting its search sector dominance, wanted to know how search will evolve as he decides the "remedies", or punishment, for Google. 'Does the government believe there's a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today, even with the remedies in place?' he said, interrupting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer David Dahlquist's closing arguments. Mr Mehta was referring to artificial intelligence. He implied that as he decides how to correct Google's monopoly, he needs to consider how quickly the tech landscape is shifting. The DOJ's antitrust case against Google is testing the limits of capitalism, profit and competition. It comes as artificial intelligence threatens to upend the internet search business models that allowed Google to dominate for decades. Almost all witnesses who spoke at the remedy portion of the trial seemed to acknowledge the speed of change in the tech world. The potency, promise and problems of AI in the context of existing business models surfaced several weeks ago when Apple executive Eddy Cue made comments from the witness box that briefly sent Google's stock careening. Mr Cue was responding to a question about user habits and the effect that AI is starting to have on search engine companies like Google. Eventually, his comments segued into a reflection of how technology businesses often struggle to adjust. 'People still are going to need toothpaste 20 years from now, 40 years from now. You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now. As crazy as that sounds,' Mr Cue, the senior vice president of services at Apple, told a lawyer representing Alphabet, owner of Google. 'You have to earn it. You have to develop,' he added, explaining that Apple's metrics showed that for the first time ever, overall searches done through Google seemed to have made a slight dip. Those comments reverberated throughout tech and legal communities, with some wondering if a remedy sought by the DOJ might be rendered moot by AI. How people search is changing, as AI swallows up website content and siphons off traffic. Mr Mehta last month sided with the DOJ and ruled that Google's search dominance harmed consumers with less choice. The Justice Department wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties that would serve as a warning at other companies. In court on Friday, Mr Dahlquist, the government lawyer, reiterated the DOJ's desire that Google be prohibited from entering into default search agreements with hardware and device makers. He also pushed for strong requirements for Google to share search data and analytics with competitors, Perhaps most consequentially, he said Mr Mehta should require that Google divest Chrome, one of the world's most popular web browsers. 'We're here to make sure this cause and the remedies we propose are able to pry open the competition of this market,' Mr Dahlquist argued. 'We understood the assignment, but rather than provide this court with remedies to promote competition, Google provided milquetoast remedies that maintain status quo,' he continued, adding that Google was acting in bad faith to try to maintain its monopoly. 'Despite Google's efforts to avoid facts, those facts, as they've discovered, are stubborn things,' he added, taking a shot at the one of the world's most powerful tech companies and its phalanx of lawyers, sitting nearby. Google's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, didn't mince words in his response. 'Look at how incredibly invasive and broad they are,' he said, referring to the DOJ's remedies that Google believes 'lack causal connection' to its original motives for bringing the company to court. 'What's the amount of data that a company might need to be able to compete?' he rhetorically asked, criticising one of the DOJ's proposed remedies that Google share search data with potential competitors. Mr Mehta pushed back, saying that ample witnesses told the court that data would help increase their ability to compete, adding that it would be a 'difficult exercise' to try to address Google's criticism of the search data remedy proposal. He also asked the DOJ if AI platforms ChatGPT or Perplexity might be eligible to receive data. 'Not today, but it could eventually,' a DOJ lawyer responded. 'They eventually plan to compete with search companies and search indexes.' Just before the court broke for lunch on Friday, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ was pleased with how the process was unfolding, even amid all the scrutiny from Google. 'Look this is a market that's been frozen in place for the better part of two decades," the official said. 'It's going to take a long time to restore competition in the search market.' That senior official also spoke to how the DOJ was trying to factor in fast-changing tech developments going forward as well as the current industry landscape. 'We don't know in the year 2035 what that's going to look like, the judge doesn't know and frankly not even Google knows,' the official explained, pivoting to issue of search data. 'So the game is, how, from a remedial standpoint how do we ensure effective remedies and that's very much about access to search data today and going forward.' Google's own proposed remedies are far lighter than those sought by the DOJ, including a solution that would give users the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months. The tech giant has also sought to maintain its ability to have contracts with device manufacturers. 'Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users,' Google said. In late April, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai made similar arguments to the court, calling proposed remedies 'too broad', and suggesting that fast-pace AI developments would blunt the DOJ's proposals. 'It would be trivial to reverse engineer and effectively build Google search from the outside,' Mr Pichai added. Closing arguments were expected to last throughout the day before Mr Mehta deliberates on a potential remedy.
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Gulf Today
What's behind Trump's pardoning spree?
Richard Hall, The Independent Donald Trump went on a pardoning spree this week, granting clemency to gang leaders, reality TV fraudsters, and various white collar criminals. Among the colorful characters freed by the president were a conspicuous number of his own supporters and donors, prompting accusations of corruption and Oyer, a former pardon attorney at the Department of Justice who was fired from her post in the house-cleaning earlier this year, called Trump's use of pardons "unprecedented." "This administration appears to be using pardons in a completely different and new way, which is to reward people who demonstrate political loyalty to the administration," she told was a particular focus in the pardon list on financial crimes and fraud, both of which Trump has had experience defending himself against. But the president also included some that were more difficult to explain. Perhaps the most baffling of all was his decision to commute six life sentences given to Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang founder, for conspiracy, extortion, and drug charges in the 1970s. Hoover was the founder of the notorious Gangster Disciples and was described by prosecutors as "one of the most notorious criminals in Illinois history." He was convicted again while in jail of running the gang from behind prison walls. Hoover, now 74, has since renounced his criminal past, and in recent years his case has attracted the support of a number of high-profile supporters in the hip-hop community. Trump is not known to be a fan of hip-hop, nor is he a believer in giving gang leaders a second chance, but during his first term he made liberal use of the presidential pardon to form relationships with high-profile rappers like Kanye West, Snoop Dogg and Lil Wayne, the latter of which received a pardon from Trump for himself. Those relationships allowed Trump to build superficial inroads with high-profile figures in hip-hop, likely in an attempt to appeal to Black male voters, without fundamentally altering his policies to address their wider concerns. Charles Blow, writing in the New York Times, called the pardons "a cheap and easy way to win favor with a few big names." While Harvard professor Brandon Terry said they "feed that kind of heroic, solidaristic picture of him as a strongman dispensing favor to people who stay in line." The Hoover pardon appears to fit that bill. Hoover was first brought to Trump's attention by Kanye West during Trump's first term in office, when the pair formed a close relationship. Trump also pardoned NBA Youngboy, a Louisiana rapper whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, likely for the same reason. Gaulden was sentenced in 2025 to just under two years in prison on gun-related charges. Michael Harris, the co-founder of Death Row Records, who spent decades in prison on drug charges, also received a full pardon. Harris had his sentence commuted by Trump during his first term. Hoover will not be a free man, however. Instead, he will be moved from the federal Supermax prison in Colorado to a state prison in Illinois, where he will serve the rest of his 200-year sentence for a litany of crimes he was convicted of in state court. That wrinkle appeared to be lost on West, who posted on X, "WORDS CAN'T EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR OUR DEVOTED ENDURING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FOR FREEING LARRY HOOVER." The rest of Trump's pardons were more in character, but no less controversial. Among them were Republican politicians, donors and supporters — many of them convicted for fraud, a crime that Trump's businesses have been accused of and denied for many years, and which Trump himself was convicted of in 2014. He pardoned former Connecticut governor John Rowland, a Republican who served from 1995 to 2004, and who was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for charges related to concealing his involvement in two federal election campaigns. Roberto Alves, chair of Connecticut's Democratic Party, said the former governor's behaviour "was condemned by Democrats and Republicans" who worked together in the aftermath of the case to pass "landmark legislation to bring more accountability to elections and state contracting." "To erase our state's reckoning with corruption is disrespectful of Connecticut law and a shameful misuse of pardon power," he added. Trump also pardoned Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York who resigned from Congress after being convicted of tax fraud in 2014. Both men had already served their sentences. It was also not difficult to figure out why Trump, a billionaire former reality TV star, pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley, a multimillionaire Trump-supporting former reality TV star couple, whose show Chrisley Knows Best ran from 2014 to 2023 on basic cable. They were serving prison sentences after being convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud in 2022. Their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, who has pushed for the pardon, revealed in an interview that Trump said her parents "didn't look like terrorists" and he wanted to give them "the full pardon." Critics have seized upon their pardon to accuse the administration of "blatant corruption." Perhaps the most controversial pardon was the one given to Paul Walczak, a 55-year-old former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 2024 election. Walczak submitted a pardon application to the president earlier this year that focused heavily on the political and fundraising activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago, who had raised millions of dollars for Trump's campaigns, according to the New York Times. His pardon came less than three weeks after Fago attended a $1-million-per-person fundraising dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago that promised face-to-face access to Trump. The pardon meant that Walczak would not have to pay $4.4 million in restitution and would escape an 18-month prison sentence. Trump's flurry of pardons did not come out of nowhere. They were given a kickstart following the appointment of the new Department of Justice pardon attorney, Ed Martin, earlier this month. The post is traditionally held by a non-political appointee; Martin is not that. Martin had been Trump's acting US attorney in the first weeks of the second Trump administration, during which time he oversaw the dismissal of hundreds of Capitol riot cases and demoted a number of prosecutors involved in the cases. He previously described Jan. 6 as "Mardi Gras in DC" and helped organize the "Stop the Steal" campaign to reverse Trump's 2020 election loss. He has raised money for Jan. 6 defendants and even represented some of them. Following the pardon of Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins, who was convicted of bribery, Martin tweeted: "No MAGA left behind." Oyer, Martin's predecessor, said his appointment "sends a message that the pardon power is now being totally and thoroughly politicized, that it will be used as a benefit to those who are supporters of the president and not for those who do not express political loyalty." Trump's flurry of pardons this week has attracted attention for their partisan nature and the colorful characters he has chosen to release. But they pale in comparison to those he issued in his first weeks in office, when he pardoned more than 1,500 Capitol rioters, many of whom were convicted of violent offences. Back in January, Dr. Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told The Independent that those pardons would revitalise a weakened extremist militia movement. "By letting violent white supremacists and militia types who engaged in this activity out of prison he has emboldened those movements, made them more powerful, and given them the sanction of the highest office," she said.
The National
3 days ago
- The National
Google antitrust case: Judge weighs remedy effectiveness against fast-moving AI developments
During closing arguments in the penalty portion of the Google antitrust trial on Friday, the judge asked a question about the fast-moving tech world that will likely give pause to legal and business experts. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Alphabet-owned Google liable for maintaining a monopoly and exploiting its search sector dominance, wanted to know how search will evolve as he decides the "remedies", or punishment, for Google. 'Does the government believe there's a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today, even with the remedies in place?' he said, interrupting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer David Dahlquist's closing arguments. Mr Mehta was referring to artificial intelligence. He implied that as he decides how to correct Google's monopoly, he needs to consider how quickly the tech landscape is shifting. The DOJ's antitrust case against Google is testing the limits of capitalism, profit and competition. It comes as artificial intelligence threatens to upend the internet search business models that allowed Google to dominate for decades. Almost all witnesses who spoke at the remedy portion of the trial seemed to acknowledge the speed of change in the tech world. The potency, promise and problems of AI in the context of existing business models surfaced several weeks ago when Apple executive Eddy Cue made comments from the witness box that briefly sent Google's stock careening. Mr Cue was responding to a question about user habits and the effect that AI is starting to have on search engine companies like Google. Eventually, his comments segued into a reflection of how technology businesses often struggle to adjust. 'People still are going to need toothpaste 20 years from now, 40 years from now. You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now. As crazy as that sounds,' Mr Cue, the senior vice president of services at Apple, told a lawyer representing Alphabet, owner of Google. 'You have to earn it. You have to develop,' he added, explaining that Apple's metrics showed that for the first time ever, overall searches done through Google seemed to have made a slight dip. Those comments reverberated throughout tech and legal communities, with some wondering if a remedy sought by the DOJ might be rendered moot by AI. How people search is changing, as AI swallows up website content and siphons off traffic. Mr Mehta last month sided with the DOJ and ruled that Google's search dominance harmed consumers with less choice. The Justice Department wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties that would serve as a warning at other companies. In court on Friday, Mr Dahlquist, the government lawyer, reiterated the DOJ's desire that Google be prohibited from entering into default search agreements with hardware and device makers. He also pushed for strong requirements for Google to share search data and analytics with competitors, Perhaps most consequentially, he said Mr Mehta should require that Google divest Chrome, one of the world's most popular web browsers. 'We're here to make sure this cause and the remedies we propose are able to pry open the competition of this market,' Mr Dahlquist argued. 'We understood the assignment, but rather than provide this court with remedies to promote competition, Google provided milquetoast remedies that maintain status quo,' he continued, adding that Google was acting in bad faith to try to maintain its monopoly. 'Despite Google's efforts to avoid facts, those facts, as they've discovered, are stubborn things,' he added, taking a shot at the one of the world's most powerful tech companies and its phalanx of lawyers, sitting nearby. Google's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, didn't mince words in his response. 'Look at how incredibly invasive and broad they are,' he said, referring to the DOJ's remedies that Google believes 'lack causal connection' to its original motives for bringing the company to court. 'What's the amount of data that a company might need to be able to compete?' he rhetorically asked, criticising one of the DOJ's proposed remedies that Google share search data with potential competitors. Mr Mehta pushed back, saying that ample witnesses told the court that data would help increase their ability to compete, adding that it would be a 'difficult exercise' to try to address Google's criticism of the search data remedy proposal. He also asked the DOJ if AI platforms ChatGPT or Perplexity might be eligible to receive data. 'Not today, but it could eventually,' a DOJ lawyer responded. 'They eventually plan to compete with search companies and search indexes.' Google's own proposed remedies are far lighter than those sought by the DOJ, including a solution that would give users the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months. The tech giant has also sought to maintain its ability to have contracts with device manufacturers. 'Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users,' Google said. In late April, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai made similar arguments to the court, calling proposed remedies 'too broad', and suggesting that fast-pace AI developments would blunt the DOJ's proposals. 'It would be trivial to reverse engineer and effectively build Google search from the outside,' Mr Pichai added. Closing arguments were expected to last throughout the day before Mr Mehta deliberates on a potential remedy.
