Latest news with #Article
GMA Network
14 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Senate to decide on SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment on Aug. 6 — Chiz
The Senate is set to discuss the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional on August 6, 2025, Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said Tuesday. During the plenary session, Escudero said the date was set next week in order to give the senators 'ample and sufficient time' to study the SC ruling. This was agreed upon by the senators present in the caucus or meeting held early Tuesday afternoon. '[We] place on record the agreement arrived upon in caucus earlier to set on a date certain the disposition of the matter pertaining to the Supreme Court decision in relation to the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte,' Escudero said. "For the record, it was agreed in caucus that the matter will be decided upon by the Senate on August 6, 2025, when we open session on that date in order to afford ample and sufficient time to the members to study the 97-page Supreme Court decision, excluding the concurring and separate opinions filed by five or six additional magistrates of the Supreme Court,' he added. Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The high court also emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol earlier said that the court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the high court's ruling on the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
18 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
VP Sara 'ready' if another impeachment complaint will be filed in 2026 —spox
The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte remains ready should there be a new impeachment complaint filed against her in 2026, her defense team spokesperson said. 'Tignan natin ang mga developments, at kung dumating man ang pagkakataon na there will be another impeachment, sabi nga nila, subject to the one-year bar, we will be ready to face those allegations,' said Atty. Michael Poa in an Unang Balita interview on Tuesday. (Let's look at the developments, and if there will be another impeachment, as they say, subject to the one-year bar, we will be ready to face those allegations.) Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court (SC) earlier declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The high court, meanwhile, emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. To recall, the House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, in return, had entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' Political pressure? Poa also answered allegations that the SC justices voted in favor of the Vice President as most of them were appointed by Sara's father, former president Rodrigo Duterte. 'Sana po ay respetuhin natin at igalang natin ang desisyon dahil medyo insulto naman siguro sa ating mga justices kung sabihin natin na nag-decide sila, one way or the other, for some political pressure,' he said in a Super Radyo dzBB interview. (I hope we respect their decision because it might be a bit insulting to our justices if we say that they decided, one way or the other, because of some political pressure.) The House of Representatives has said it is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. At the Senate, impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol said it is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the high court's ruling on the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Hindustan Times
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Kerala moves SC seeking rejection of Prez reference
New Delhi: The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the presidential reference that has sought clarification on timelines set for the President and the Governor to act on bills presented for their consent, alleging the reference seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Kerala moves SC seeking rejection of Prez reference In an application moved a day before the hearing in the pending reference proceedings on Tuesday, the Kerala government pointed out that the apex court's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the presidential reference in May. The state alleged that the presidential reference has 'supressed' this material fact. The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu v Governor case set the timelines for the Governor and President to act on the bills presented for their consent within three months. Pointing out that the Centre has not filed a review petition against the April 8 verdict, establishing it as a settled law, the Kerala government argued that if the Union government wanted to challenge the top court judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative plea in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of presidential reference. The presidential reference cannot 'obliquely' challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to 'serious misuse' of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued. Noting that the presidential reference makes no reference to the April 8 judgment, the application said: 'The reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered.' The application, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the top court. 'The instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon'ble Court, and to get this Hon'ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of timeframe under Article 200, which is not res integra (an untouched matter),' it added. Article 200 makes the governor's assent mandatory for clearing the bills passed by the state legislature. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor may 'as soon as possible after the presentation' of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the state legislature. The April 8 verdict, passed on a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging withholding of consent on 10 crucial bills, termed the governor's withholding of sanction 'illegal'. The court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 declared 'deemed' assent to the bills. The Kerala application said the foundation of the presidential reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any timeframe upon the governor for the exercise of his powers and functions thereunder. 'This is amazing, and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'. That there is a timeline in Article 200 stands settled by no less than three separate judgments of this Court,' the application said. It referred to past decisions of the top court in state of Telangana v Governor case and state of Punjab v Governor case, both decided in 2023, which affirmed that action by the governor on bills sent for consideration should be done 'as soon as possible'. 'If the reference itself is based on an erroneous statement, the entirety of the reference, which mainly relates to the time factor, should stand rejected,' Kerala argued, adding: 'The first 11 out of the 14 queries raised (in the reference) are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of TN v Governor decision (of April 8, 2025), merely one month before the reference was made on May 13. The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected.' A five-judge Constitution bench took up the reference on July 22 and issued notices to Centre and state governments. The court had posted the matter for July 29 to fix timelines for hearing the matter in August. Incidentally, the Kerala government had last week withdrawn its appeal challenging the governor's inaction to clear eight bills pending for a period varying between one to three years in the southern state. Later in the day, the Tamil Nadu government filed an application in the same proceedings urging the top court to return the May 13 Presidential Reference as 'not maintainable,' calling it an attempt to reopen settled constitutional law. The state argued that no new 'substantial question of law' arises under Article 143(1), rendering the reference an 'appeal in disguise' and liable to be returned unanswered.
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
Kerala opposes presidential reference on Governors' assent deadlines
The Kerala Government has opposed the Presidential reference filed before the Supreme Court regarding deadlines for Governors in granting assent to state its application submitted to the Court, the state contended that the reference is 'not maintainable' and suffers from 'serious legal lacunae.'Kerala argued that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference have already been addressed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Tamil Nadu Government vs Governor case. Since the Union Government has not filed any review or curative petition against that verdict, Kerala maintained that the Centre has effectively accepted the Stating that the judgment has neither been assailed nor set aside in any validly constituted proceeding, Kerala submitted that it has attained finality and is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be challenged indirectly through the current state alleged that the Union Government is using the reference as a device to reopen and contest settled constitutional issues, without disclosing that the apex court has already ruled on Article 144, Kerala asserted that the President and the Council of Ministers are constitutionally bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court, not seek to overturn its judgments by indirect also objected to the claim made in the reference that Article 200 does not prescribe a timeline for Governors to act on bills. The state said the Supreme Court has already interpreted the provision clearly, and the reference attempts to mislead the Court into reconsidering its settled suppression of judicial precedent, misinterpretation of constitutional provisions, and lack of transparency in the reference, Kerala urged the Court to return the reference unanswered.'This Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgments—nor can that power be vested in it by the President under Article 143,' the state further contended that if the foundation of the reference is flawed and the majority of questions aim to overturn existing judgments, the presence of two or three additional questions does not obligate the Court to address any of them.- EndsMust Watch
NBC News
a day ago
- Business
- NBC News
Trump seeks quick deposition of Murdoch in Epstein letter case
Lawyers for President Donald Trump asked a judge on Monday to order Rupert Murdoch to sit for a deposition within 15 days for Trump's $10 billion lawsuit accusing the media mogul of defaming him in a Wall Street Journal article about a 'bawdy' birthday letter to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump's lawyers cited Murdoch's advanced age to submit to questioning under oath as a chief argument in their motion to compel him to testify earlier than would be normal in such a lawsuit, suggesting that Murdoch will either be too ill or dead to testify by the time the case goes to trial. 'Murdoch is 94 years old, has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life, is believed to have suffered recent significant health scares, and is presumed to live in New York, New York,' Trump's lawyers said in their legal filing in Miami federal court. 'Taken together, these factors weigh heavily in determining that Murdoch would be unavailable for in-person testimony at trial,' the lawyers wrote. The attorneys also cited the fact that there is, as yet, no order scheduling the exchange of evidence and testimony in the case. 'Murdoch has an advantage over President Trump as Murdoch is able to defend himself because he has access to all the information and documents related to the below-defined malicious and defamatory Article, and the decision behind deciding to publish it,' they wrote. 'On the other hand, President Trump has very limited information related to the Article.' 'For these and other reasons that follow, Murdoch would not suffer any prejudice significant enough to outweigh the good cause that exists to grant this Motion,' they wrote. Murdoch opposes the request that he sit for an expedited deposition, according to the filing. CNBC has requested comment from Murdoch's attorneys. Judge Darrin Gayles, who is presiding over the case, later Monday filed an order directing Murdoch's lawyers to respond to the motion by Aug. 4. The motion also seeks a number of documents from Murdoch. They include any documents exchanged between him and other defendants in the case. It also seeks 'Any text messages, iMessages, WhatsApp messages, Slack messages, Signal messages, WeChat messages, or any other form of digital communication on any mobile device related to the Article that You have sent or received,' and a log of his calls from July 10 through July 25. The Journal, which is owned by Murdoch's News Corp, earlier this month published an article saying that Trump sent Epstein a letter for his 50th birthday in 2003. The newspaper said that the letter 'contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.' 'The letter concludes: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,'' the paper reported. Trump has angrily denied writing the letter. His lawsuit against Murdoch also names as defendants News Corp, its CEO Robert Thomson, the Journal's publisher Dow Jones & Company, and the two reporters whose bylines are on the article, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. The motion filed Monday by Trump's lawyers also said that when one of the reporters reached out to the White House to ask about the letter, 'President Trump reached out to, and spoke directly with, Murdoch and advised him that the letter referenced in the Article was fake.' 'Murdoch advised President Trump that 'he would take care of it,'' the motion said. 'Because Defendants published the Article after President Trump spoke directly with Murdoch and advised him that the letter referenced in the Article was fake, Murdoch's direct involvement further underscores Defendants' actual malice and intent behind the decision to publish the false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements about President Trump identified in the Complaint,' the motion said.
