Honeylet says she's suspended from visiting Duterte in ICC detention
Former President Rodrigo Duterte's common-law partner, Honeylet Avanceña, said her visitation rights to the detained former leader at the International Criminal Court detention facility had been suspended.
According to Marisol Abdurahman's report on "24 Oras," Avanceña said she was told about her suspension during her last visit to Duterte.
"'Nung time na yun, five minutes bago matapos, sinabihan na lang ako na isusupend daw ako. Ang sabi pa nga ni PRD doon sa lalaki na 'you cannot do that' kasi nga he's expecting me. This is my time right now. This is my schedule to visit him. Tapos the following day, wala na akong visit,' Avanceña said.
(During that time, just five minutes before my visit ended, I was told that I was going to be suspended. Duterte even told the man, 'You cannot do that,' because he was expecting me. It was my scheduled time to visit him. Then the next day, I was no longer allowed to visit.)
Avanceña noted that her suspension was related to a call with Duterte on July 19, when she was supposed to have commented on the case. She said she didn't know anything about the issue.
She blamed Duterte's ICC-listed defense counsel Nicholas Kaufman.
"I have nothing against you, pero please do not deprive us of asking other people or asking legal opinions from other lawyers also. We acknowledge you as his lawyer," Avanceña said.
"You know, I know you are protecting your real practice. I don't know if you're trying to prove something [but] we are concerned about the life of this man,' she added.
When asked about the legal basis of Avanceña's suspension of visitation rights, Kaufman refused to comment on the matter.
'For judicial reasons and out of respect for family privacy, I am not going to comment on the veracity of Honeylet Avanceña's allegations concerning her presence not being desired at the ICC detention centre,' Kaufman said.
'Honeylet Avanceña, so it would appear, is emotionally distressed for reasons on which, as I mentioned previously, I cannot elaborate. As a consequence, she is making all sorts of wild allegations which are being stoked by others,' he added.
Kaufman further said, 'The simple fact of the matter is that the Vice President, as a lawyer herself, is fully qualified to judge the quality of my engagement with and work for the former president.'
GMA Integrated News has reached out to Vice President Sara Duterte for comment.
Kaufman also said visiting rights were not determined by the counsel but by the detention center authorities, with the intervention of the judges when necessary.
'The former President's health is being adequately managed and overseen by all those currently in daily contact with him,' Kaufman said. –Mariel Celine Serquiña/NB, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
India offers free e-visas to Filipino tourists
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the "gratis e-tourist visas for Filipinos" following his bilateral meeting with President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. India will offer e-visas free of charge to Filipino tourists as part of "facilitating greater people-to-people exchanges." Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the "gratis e-tourist visas for Filipinos" following his bilateral meeting with President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. Marcos is in New Delhi for a state visit on the invitation of the Prime Minister. "I reiterated the introduction of visa-free entry privileges and extended our invitation for more Indian tourists to visit the Philippines," Marcos said. "I thank Prime Minister Modi in turn for the introduction of a scheme to grant visa free of charge to Filipino tourists traveling to India," he added. The visa privileges were also mentioned in the Declaration on the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership between the two countries, signed by Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa P. Lazaro and Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. "Facilitating greater people-to-people exchanges. In this regard, the two leaders welcomed the grant of visa-free privileges to Indian tourists by the Philippines, and the extension of gratis e-tourist visa for Filipino nationals by India," the declaration read. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
House lawmakers support call for oral arguments on VP Sara impeachment
Several members of the House of Representatives on Tuesday supported calls for the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. The calls came as the House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC, asking it to reverse its ruling that the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte were unconstitutional. "I welcome the call for the SC to issue a status quo ante order and call for oral arguments to explain intricate legal issues and ventilate factual incidents that may be clarified for the appreciation of the Honorable Justices," impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua of Manila's 3rd District told GMA Integrated News. Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro, another impeachment prosecutor, agreed, saying the motion for reconsideration must be decided on "with utmost care." "This is a landmark case in impeachment proceedings, thus both parties must be accorded ample opportunity to argue their respective positions. Let us be mindful that these are the very foundations of our democracy: the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land; the impeachment, which is the people's redress against erring and abusive public officials; and ultimately, the integrity of the Highest Tribunal which has the exclusive power to interpret laws," she told GMA Integrated News. Tingog Party-list Representative Jude Acidre reiterated that the issue is not Duterte but how the Supreme Court's ruling will impact future impeachment cases. "I think the position of the House is not merely because it's about the Vice President who's at stake here. Also because I think we have to look at precedent. If we allow this particular ruling to prevail, then it will have serious consequences on the way impeachment trials will be done. And possibly, as far as the House is concerned, if we listen to the Speaker yesterday, we're worried it would infringe on the exclusivity of the right of Congress to initiate impeachment cases," he said in an interview. The legislator said he supports calls for the SC to hold oral arguments on the issue—a call echoed by groups such as 1Sambayan. "Kailangan din natin pag-aralan paano magiging epektibong mekanismo sa pag-e-ensure ng accountability ang impeachment process," Acidre said. (We also need to study how the impeachment process can become an effective mechanism to ensure accountability.) "If the impeachment case is dismissed, then we have practically... it's to the country's loss. Kasi ibig sabihin noon, never natin malalaman at never masasagot ang mga katanungan, matagal na natin hinihingi. Katulad ng kung ginamit ba nang tama ang confidential funds, may pananagutan ba ang vice president tungkol sa kanyang pagbabanta sa buhay ng Pangulo, ng unang ginang at ang Speaker ng House." he added. (It would mean that we would never know and never get answers to the questions that we have long been asking. Such as if the confidential funds were used properly, or is the Vice President liable for the threats she made against the President, the First Lady and the Speaker.) "These are issues that need to be answered. These are issues that affect the very core of our democracy. May naman pupwedeng dahil lang sa teknikalidad ay nabalewala na po ito [It could be that these will be dismissed due to a technicality]," he added. While Acidre said he respects whatever the Senate decides to do with the Articles of Impeachment, he stressed he is still hopeful that the impeachment trial will proceed. When asked if the Supreme Court decision effectively removed the third mode of impeachment, which is to immediately transmit to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment if it is signed by at least a third of all members of the House of Representatives, Acidre replied, "I wouldn't say as far as tinanggal [removed]. Siguro radically change. It makes it difficult for congressmen to exercise that. And I think I agree it requires examining whether it is an example of judicial overreach." Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña, who recently filed a motion to intervene in the impeachment case at the Supreme Court, stressed the importance of holding oral arguments on the issue. "Napakahalaga yung oral arguments para magkaroon din ng fair day in court itong ating motion for reconsideration. And more than that, napakahalaga na madinig ng taumbayan yung katwiran ng parehong panig at na mapaliwanag ng House of Representatives na yung lahat ng ginawa natin ay in compliance with the Constitution at yung sarili nating House rules," he said in an interview. (It is very important to hold oral arguments so that the motion for reconsideration will have a fair day in court. And more than that, it is very important for the Filipino people to hear the reasonings of both sides and for the House of Representatives to explain why everything we have done is in compliance with the Constitution and our own House rules.) He also called on the Senate not to act in haste on the Articles of Impeachment. "Para silang bibiyahe na jeep. Hindi pa puno, gusto nilang umarangkada. At pag umarangkada sila, ang mangyari, ang maiiwan, yung katotohanan, pananagutan, at yung katarungan," Cendaña said. (It's like they're on a jeep that wants to get going even before it's full. And when they leave early, what gets left behind are the truth, accountability, and justice,) "Sa dulo, ang mahalaga dito, dapat marinig ng taumbayan yung dalawang panig at magkaroon ng fair day in court. Kasi nga, pag nangyari yan, pag dismissed na yan na hindi pa final ang process sa Korte Suprema, talo na naman ang taumbayan," he added. Dinagat Islands Rep Kaka Bag-ao also believes that oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the impeachment will make the issues clearer for the public. "Una-una, dapat maintindihan pa nga ng taumbayqn. And I think the only response to that would be an oral argument in Court na puwedeng mabigyan ng pagkakataon yung mga partido to explain ano talaga ang totoong facts doon sa issue," Bag-ao said in an interview. Bag-ao also believes the Senate Impeachment Court should conduct an impeachment trial. "Yung impeachment trial ay dapat din matuloy at dapat maintindihan ng Senado yan, no? Bukod sa hindi pa tapos yung kaso sa Supreme Court, pangungunahan nila. Kahit pa sabihin nilang sila ang may sole authority, ang kailangan pa rin, ang requirement pa rin ay, anuman ang kanilang response, ay magkaroon ng trial. Gusto natin makita ano ba talagang ebidensya laban kay VP? Ano ba talagang depensa ni VP Sara? Tingin ko dapat mas maintindihan ito ng mga tao," Bag-ao said. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
Heated debates or not? Senators ready decision on VP Sara impeachment
Senators are now gearing up for proceedings on Wednesday when the upper chamber decides on how it would proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following the Supreme Court (SC) ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional. In an ambush interview, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa said that should there be a motion in the plenary on Wednesday, August 6, to dismiss the Vice President's impeachment case, the so-called Duterte bloc will "most likely" vote in favor of it. However, he clarified that the Duterte bloc has not discussed anything on the matter. Dela Rosa also said he believes that there's no need for debates among senators, stressing that the SC decision is immediately executory even as the House of Representatives already filed a motion for reconsideration. "In the first place nga para sa akin, there's no need for debates. Bakit pagdebatehan 'yan nagsalita na ang Supreme Court eh. Nagdesisyon na ang Supreme Court, bakit mag-debate pa tayo? Hindi ako lawyer…pero naniwala ako that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God," he said. (In the first place, I believe that there's no need for debates. Why should we still debate on that when the Supreme Court has already spoken? I'm not a lawyer... but I believe that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God.) "Tignan natin kung ano magsipaglabasan bukas. Ayaw kong magsalita ng tapos. Pero kung tanungin niyo ako, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked," he added. (Let's see what comes out tomorrow. I don't want to preempt anything, but if you ask me, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked.) Dela Rosa said he was still willing to listen to the arguments of his fellow senators, particularly the four who signed a draft resolution on how the Senate can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial after the SC ruling. "Four versus 20? Maging mainit ba 'yan (Will the debates be heated)? I don't know," he said. Long debates Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he expects that the debates tomorrow will be long. "Yes, I've read it. I'm ready for tomorrow," Sotto said, referring to the 97-page Supreme Court decision. For his part, Senator Erwin Tulfo said his desire for the impeachment trial to continue still stands, emphasizing that he wants the public to see the evidence on the Articles of Impeachment. "This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision [declaring the articles] unconstitutional. Hanggang ngayon, that is my stand. Gusto ko sanang makita. Pero may limitations na ngayon, 'di ba? So, mayroong sinasabing unconstitutional. So, 'yun ang pinag-aralan ko these past few days and I will be basing my decision diyan sa lumalabas ngayon," Tulfo said in a separate interview. (This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision that the articles are unconstitutional. Until now, that is my stand. I would like to see the evidence. But there are limitations now, right? It was declared unconstitutional. So, that's what I am studying these past few days and I will be basing my decision on what will come out.) He also said he was expecting "heated" debates tomorrow between senators in favor of dismissing the case, and those who want the trial to continue. Voting 13-0-2, the SC earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that these are barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that these violate her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said 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. The House of Representatives on Monday asked the SC to reverse its decision, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate permitted to exercise its power to try the case. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
