Edited news graphic misrepresents ruling on Philippine VP impeachment
"Du30 are (sic) innocent. It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law," reads text written on an apparent news graphic shared July 26, 2025 on Facebook.
The post appears to attribute the remarks to Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen, whose picture is included in the image.
He penned the tribunal's July 25 ruling that blocked Duterte's trial, saying it violated a constitutional provision against multiple impeachment proceedings within a single year (archived link).
The House of Representatives impeached Duterte in February, charging the vice president with graft, corruption and an alleged assassination plot against one-time ally and former running mate President Ferdinand Marcos.
"They just can't accept that SARA DU30 is innocent, no stain of corruption," says the image's Tagalog-language caption, using a popular nickname for the vice president.
The top court's 13-0 ruling came just days before the Senate was to begin its new session, with the vice president's political future hanging in the balance (archived link).
Widely expected to run for president in 2028, a Senate trial conviction would have barred Duterte permanently from public office.
The claim -- earlier debunked by Rappler -- has also spread on TikTok, YouTube and Threads (archived link).
Several users appeared to have been misled.
"Yes Dutertes are innocent," one user commented. Another user said: "Good decision, Supreme Court. Thank God!"
But the posts share a manipulated news graphic and misrepresent the Supreme Court's decision on the case.
"Our ruling does not absolve petitioner Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate," the court said in its decision published on its official website (archived link).
It added a new impeachment process can only be initiated against Duterte starting February 6, 2026.
A reverse image search on Google found the original graphic published on the Facebook page of local media News5 on July 25, 2025 (archived link). It does not include the quote, "Duterte are innocent".
Duterte's impeachment trial has triggered a flurry of false posts, many of them debunked by AFP here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
15 minutes ago
- NBC News
Live updates: Trump tariffs take effect; Russia says Putin will meet on Ukraine
What to know today... TRUMP TARIFFS: President Donald Trump 's sweeping tariffs took effect today at just after midnight ET, affecting everything from European appliances and Japanese cars to a slew of goods from China. TRUMP-PUTIN MEETING: The Kremlin said Vladimir Putin and Trump will meet in the 'coming days' after the U.S. president said he hoped to hold a meeting with his Russian counterpart in person to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. REDISTRICTING FIGHT: A decade of Supreme Court rulings has set the stage for the fight over redistricting in Texas and the unfolding responses in several other states that are now considering redrawing their congressional maps as well.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Southeast Asia Looks for Clarity From U.S. on ‘Rules of Origin'
Southeast Asian officials spent the past few days praising President Trump's tariffs as a win, saying that they could now compete fairly with their neighbors and that their businesses could plan for the future. But though tariffs for Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam are set at around 20 percent, those countries still face a cloud of uncertainty as negotiations grind on. The biggest concern: details surrounding the 40 percent tariff on so-called transshipments of products from China, and especially what percentage of Chinese-made components would set it off. Although the countries have taken steps to crack down on the practice, they say the Trump administration has not defined clearly what it regards as a transshipped product. This has implications for Southeast Asia because Chinese manufacturers have long set up factories in the region, and many of the goods made in them use components that are made in China. Exactly how the United States plans to determine whether a product from Thailand, for example, would qualify for a 19 percent tariff or a 40 percent levy is not clear. Senior officials in Southeast Asia say the United States is setting its criteria for so-called rules of origin unilaterally to define what constitutes a locally made product, based on a calculation that involves raw materials, overhead productions and the cost of labor. 'We explained to them that, if they put a very high percentage, we will not qualify, because we don't have our upstream industry yet, so we need to improve and diversify our supply chains,' said Sun Chanthol, Cambodia's deputy prime minister and lead trade negotiator. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Texas could face greater legal hurdles than California in redistricting fight
California is in a standoff with Texas over redistricting that could decide the balance of power in Congress for the end of Donald Trump's presidency — a high-stakes gambit with risks for both sides. But if the courts have their say, Texas, facing accusations of racial discrimination, may find itself at a distinct legal disadvantage. Both efforts by Texas Republicans and California Democrats are blatantly partisan, proposing a mid-decade redrawing of district lines for the express purpose of benefiting their party in the 2026 midterm elections. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is working with a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature on 'trigger' legislation that would schedule a ballot initiative this fall for the new maps. It was a direct response to a Texas plan, supported by Trump and currently in motion in the Austin statehouse, to potentially flip five seats in the upcoming election from blue to red. The Supreme Court has ruled that judges are powerless to review partisan gerrymandering, even if, as it wrote in 2019, the practice is 'incompatible with democratic principles.' The court ruled in Rucho vs. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering 'is incompatible with the 1st Amendment, that the government shouldn't do this, and that legislatures and people who undertake this aren't complying with the letter of the Constitution,' said Chad Dunn, a professor and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project who has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. 'But it concluded that doesn't mean the U.S. Supreme Court is the solution to it.' What courts can still do, however, is enforce the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from redistricting that 'packs' or 'cracks' minority groups in ways that dilute their voting power. 'Texas doesn't need to have a good reason or a legitimate reason to engage in mid-decade redistricting — even if it's clear that Texas is doing this for pure partisan reasons, nothing in federal law at the moment, at least, would preclude that,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University. 'But Texas cannot redistrict in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act.' In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the current makeup of the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district. Today, Texas' proposed maps may face a similar challenge, amid accusations that they are 'cracking' racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said. Already, the state's 2021 congressional maps are under legal scrutiny over discrimination concerns. 'The Supreme Court affirmed two years ago that the Voting Rights Act works the way we all thought it worked,' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. 'That's part of the reason for current litigation in Texas, and will undoubtedly be a part of continuing litigation if Texas redraws their lines and goes ahead with it.' The groundwork for the current Texas plan appears to have been laid with a letter from Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, who threatened Texas with legal action over three 'coalition districts' that she argued were unconstitutional. Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The resulting maps proposed by Texas redraw all three. J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas' 2021 redistricting effort, said the politics of race in Texas specifically, and the South generally, make its redistricting challenges plain to see but harder to solve. How do you distinguish between partisanship, which is allowed, and racism, which is not, in states where partisanship falls so neatly down racial lines? That dilemma may become Texas' greatest legal problem, as well as its saving grace in court, Kousser said. 'In Texas, as in most Southern states, the connection between race and party is so close that it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between them,' he said. 'That seems to give a get-out-of-jail free card, essentially, to anybody who can claim this is partisan, rather than racial.' Today, nine states face ongoing litigation concerning potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, a law that turned 60 years old this week. Seven are in the South — states that had for decades been subject to a pre-clearance requirement at the Justice Department before being allowed to change state voting laws. The Supreme Court struck down the requirement, in the case of Shelby County vs. Holder, in 2013. Newsom has been vocal in his stance that California should position itself to be the national bulwark against the Texas plan. Last week, the Democratic caucuses of the state Legislature heard a presentation by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on how California might legally gerrymander its own maps for the 2026 midterms. Matt Barreto, the co-founder of the project and a professor of political science and Chicana/o and Central American studies, said his organization's position is that gerrymandering 'should not be allowed by any state,' he said. But 'if other states are playing the game, the governor is saying he wants to play the game too,' Barreto added. He said that although five seats have been discussed to match what Texas is doing, he sees a pathway for California to create seven seats that would be safely Democratic. That includes potential redraws in Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire and the northern part of the state. Barreto said there are many districts that currently skew as much as 80% Democratic, and by pulling some of those blue voters into nearby red districts, they could be flipped without risk to the current incumbents, though some new districts may have odd shapes. For example, districts in the north could become elongated to reach into blue Sacramento or the Bay Area, 'using the exact same standards that Texas does,' he said. Legislators seemed receptive to the idea. 'We've taken basic American rights for granted for too long,and I think we're ill equipped to protect them,' said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who attended the meeting. 'To me, this is much bigger than Texas,' she said. State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who has worked on redistricting in the past, echoed that support for Newsom, saying he was not 'comfortable' with the idea of gerrymandering but felt 'compelled' in the current circumstances. 'In order to respond to what's going on in Texas in particular,' Umberg said, 'we should behave in a like manner.' Barreto, the UCLA professor, warned that if any redistricting happens in California, 'no matter what, there's going to be a lawsuit.' Dunn said that it's possible voters could sue under the Voting Rights Act in California, claiming the new districts violate their right to fair representation — even white voters, who have more traditionally been on the other side of such legal actions. The 1965 law is 'for everybody, of every race and ethnicity,' Dunn said. A lawsuit 'could be on behalf of the places where the white community is in the minority.' The prospect of that litigation and the chaos it could cause gives pause to some voting rights experts who see the current situation as a race to the bottom that could ultimately harm democracy by undermining voters' trust in the system. 'It's mutual destruction,' said Mindy Romero, a voting expert and professor at USC, of the Texas-California standoff. The best outcome of the current situation, she said, would be for Congress to take action to prohibit partisan gerrymandering nationwide. This week, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who represents a district north of Sacramento that would be vulnerable in redistricting, introduced legislation that would bar mid-decade redistricting. So far, it has gained little support. 'Just like lots of other things, Congress is dropping the ball by not addressing this national problem,' said Richard Hasen, a UCLA professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. 'When it comes to congressional redistricting, fairness should be evaluated on a national basis, since the decisions made in California or Texas affect the whole country,' he said. The must-read: Tired of waiting for the city, Angelenos paint their own crosswalks. Some become permanent The what happened: Federal agents use Penske rental truck as 'Trojan Horse' to raid Los Angeles Home DepotThe L.A. Times special: Inside the high-stakes clandestine poker world that led to a Hollywood Hills murder Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
