It's the fourth week of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trail. It is amazing how she is either so disdainful of what's happening or overconfident she will win. the first charge brought against her by the prosecution was her threat to have the President, his wife, and the Speaker of the house assassinated by a hired gunman in the event she should be assassinated. After denying that charge she brazenly gave a speech where she told us exactly how much it costs to hire an assassin.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2274161/sara-duterte-on-being-able-to-hire-a-gunman |
Vice President Sara Duterte asserted that the deaths linked to her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign were driven by the country’s rampant gun violence, claiming that hiring a gunman could only cost a person P5,000 per hit.Sara made the remarks during a rally on Wednesday, held in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC) detention center in The Hague, Netherlands.
In her speech, she argued that the deaths caused by her father’s anti-drug campaign did not amount to crimes against humanity, as it remained unclear whether all those killed were victims of the drug war, citing the prevalence of gun violence in the Philippines.
“I have a husband. My husband has a mistress. I can hire a gunman for 5,000 pesos to kill the mistress … that is how bad gun violence in the Philippines is. And that is, again, yes, EJK (extrajudicial killing),” said Sara.
“So how can you say that all your listed victims, all your listed complainants are supposed victims of the drug war? … how can they say now that all the victims there are victims of the drug war? That is supposed to be a crime against humanity?” she added.
It should be noted, however, that official government records already showed that at least 6,000 people were killed during the bloody campaign against drugs of Rodrigo Duterte’s administration.
Human rights groups’ records further showed that at least 30,000 were killed, including children as young as 3 years old.
Meanwhile, Duterte, in a separate statement, said her remarks on gun violence—which she used primarily to explain the deaths during her father’s bloody campaign against drugs in the interview—should not be “reduced to a passing remark.”“This is not merely a ‘Duterte and k*ll, k*ll, k*ll’ it reflects the daily reality faced by Filipinos on the streets wondering whether they can go home safely,” she said.
According to Duterte, Filipinos have grown too accustomed to reports of shootings, killings and other violent crimes, with “too many” having been victims of shootings, stabbings, kidnappings, sexual violence, and other crimes.
“The reality is – Filipinos do not feel safe!” said Duterte.
Meanwhile, in the same speech, Sara also accused the ICC of being President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV’s “tuta” or puppy.
Her source? The 18 alleged Marines, known as “maleta boys,” who accused Trillanes of receiving two million dollars from resigned Ako Bicol party-list congressman Zaldy Co to facilitate the entry into the country of ICC investigators and allegedly to bribe the international tribunal.
“And so, how do we characterize Trillanes and Marcos in relation to ICC? Yes, they are traitors to the Filipino and to the country. But more than that, ang ICC, ay tuta ni Trillanes at ni Marcos,” said Sara.
“Because the ICC has no other case except for the case of [former] President Rodrigo Duterte. And they found what? And they found Marcos, Trillanes, and money in the Philippine case. We’re talking about suitcases here,” she added.
Rodrigo Duterte, who is facing three counts of crimes against humanity, is set to face trial before the ICC on Nov. 30.
 |
| https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1280687 |
The Senator who uploaded a doctored video of Chel Diokno was Pia Cayetano, a staunch Duterte ally. An ethics complaint has since been filed against her.House of Representatives prosecution panel adviser and spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers on Thursday called on the Senate, sitting as the Impeachment Court in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, to address the spread of fake and misleading content allegedly originating from within the ranks of the senator-judges.
In a radio interview, Barbers said it is the responsibility of the Senate leadership and the members of the impeachment court to ensure that their own ranks uphold the integrity and impartiality of the proceedings.
“On this issue, our call is for the Presiding Officer and the whole impeachment court to police their own ranks. They should look into who is crossing the line or who is violating the rules,” the former Surigao del Norte lawmaker said.
Barbers made the appeal after the circulation of a Facebook post published under the account of Senator Pia Cayetano, which, according to the House prosecution panel, contained a "spliced" video of the oral arguments between Cayetano and prosecution panel member Rep. Chel Diokno.
The prosecution panel alleged that the edited video misrepresented the exchange by making it appear that the prosecution was engaged in a "fishing expedition" when it sought the issuance of subpoenas for the Vice President's bank accounts and other financial records.
While condemning the circulation of the video, Barbers said the prosecution panel remains confident that the public witnessed the actual proceedings and understands what transpired during the hearing.
“In my opinion, there was no effect on the side of the prosecution. But on the integrity of the senator-judges, there is a big question. If a senator-judge shows bias or takes a side while on trial, it seems that it is a violation of their rules,” he said.
Barbers noted that the issue goes beyond the prosecution and instead concerns the credibility of the Senate as an impeachment court.
“The public heard what really transpired. We don’t expect that coming from a senator-judge, this fake and spliced video. That is why our call to them, since they know what really happened, is for them to rectify this,” he said.
“The House prosecution panel reiterated its appeal for the Senate impeachment court to take the necessary steps to safeguard the integrity, impartiality, and credibility of the impeachment proceedings by addressing the alleged dissemination of manipulated content related to the trial.”
To counter misinformation, the House prosecution panel is already searching for another lawyer with litigation experience to help explain the impeachment proceedings while its current legal spokesperson prepares to present witnesses.
In a televised interview also on Thursday, private prosecutor and House prosecution legal spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. disclosed that the search began even before questions were raised over his simultaneous performance of courtroom and communications duties.
“But, actually, even before this came up, we've already been trying to look for another spokesperson, because when I informed our team that when it's my turn to be on deck and to present a witness, I would have to scale back my spokesman duties,” Tolosa said.
“So, once I informed them about that, then we started to look for, you know, someone who could complement me, you know, and help me out in doing these spokes duties."
The panel, he said, is specifically looking for another lawyer who can understand courtroom developments and explain their legal significance to viewers without compromising the pending proceedings.
He added the additional legal voice is needed because the public discussion surrounding the trial has been vulnerable to inaccurate claims and distorted accounts since the proceedings began.
“The goal here is to combat, misinformation, disinformation campaign. We've been seeing that from day one,” Tolosa said.
The prosecution already has House lawmakers serving as trial spokespersons, but Tolosa maintained that the legal and technical nature of many courtroom disputes requires sustained public explanation.
“So, for us, that is very crucial, so that we could explain, in a manner that could be understood by the public the technicalities, what's actually going on in this trial,” he said.
Tolosa also committed to exercise greater caution after the impeachment court spokesperson reminded both camps to observe the sub judice rule in their public statements.
“We welcome that reminder, and we'll make sure that moving forward we'll be even more cautious and careful about ensuring not to violate the sub judice rule,” he said.
The prosecution, however, has yet to identify a final candidate who can share the legal spokesperson’s workload when Tolosa takes the lead in presenting a witness.
“Last I checked, I don't think the people have been vetted or, if we have, a short list at this point. It looks like the search is ongoing as we speak,” Tolosa said.
Detained Sen. Rodante Marcoleta on Tuesday called on his Senate colleagues to explore ways for him and fellow minority senator Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Both senators are currently in detention as they separately face nonbailable plunder charges before the Sandiganbayan.
“I filed a manifestation in the Senate where I presented the legal reason why the Senate needs to find proper ways so that Senator Jinggoy and I can participate in the ongoing impeachment trial,” Marcoleta said in a chance interview at the antigraft court, where he appeared for a pretrial conference in the Third Division.
According to Marcoleta, his detention does not change his status as one of the 24 incumbent senators who would eventually be asked to vote to either acquit or convict the Vice President.
On July 20, Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, presiding officer of the impeachment court, said Marcoleta had submitted a letter of manifestation asking that his vote be considered in the proceedings.
Escudero then said he was “inclined to agree” with Marcoleta’s suggestion as long as the latter is not facing suspension as a senator.
When the trial started on July 6, Escudero maintained that the number of votes required for a conviction remained at 16, consistent with the constitutional provision setting the threshold at two-thirds of the chamber’s total membership pegged at 24.
Marcoleta has been charged by the Ombudsman with plunder over his failure to declare in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth the P75 million he said he received as donation for his senatorial campaign in the 2025 elections.
On July 22, the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division ordered Marcoleta to explain why he should not be placed under preventive suspension as a senator. It cited a provision of the Anti-Plunder Act which provides for such as measure for any public official charged with the crime.
As to Estrada, the court’s Fifth Division, which hears his plunder case, denied his June 29 motion to be allowed to participate in the impeachment trial.
The charge against Estrada stemmed from the allegation that he received P573 million in kickbacks through insertions made in the 2025 budget flood control projects.
Why would Escudero be inclined to agree? It is legal precedent set by the Supreme Court that imprisoned persons cannot practice their profession.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. Consequently, all the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 must be confined in the Provincial Jail of Antique.
Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Wednesday said it decided to forgo the cross-examination of one of the prosecution’s witnesses on Article I of the impeachment complaint to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings and “being petty by asking unnecessary questions.”Defense spokesperson Michael Poa, who also served as the counsel assigned to Wednesday’s cross-examination, said this after skipping the cross-examination of former LandBank department manager Violeta Constantino during the 10th day of Duterte’s impeachment trial.
“There was nothing questionable or damaging in what the witness presented. The witness merely identified the checks, which is something we are not even disputing,” said Poa in a press conference after the trial.
“So, I didn’t want to prolong the proceedings and, you know, be petty by asking questions when they weren’t even necessary,” he added.
Meanwhile, while Poa cross-examined the second witness, former LandBank’s DepEd branch manager Nenita Camposano, the entire process took only two short questions.
Constantino was the House prosecution panel’s first witness in tackling Article I nvolving Duterte’s alleged misuse, misappropriation and irregular liquidation of confidential funds, as she personally oversaw the encashment of four checks worth P125 million each by former Office of the Vice President Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta.
Camposano, on the other hand, oversaw the Department of Education’s P37.5 million encashment of confidential funds back when Duterte still led the department as its secretary.
Asked why he didn’t even choose to question the witnesses’ characterization of the encashments as “unusual,” Poa explained that he viewed the pronouncements merely as personal opinions of the two former LandBank executives.“I don’t see how it will affect the case. It’s not even an issue here. We’re not questioning the validity of the encashment, are we?” said Poa.
“So I really thought it would have been petty to dwell on it. The only question I raised was to clarify why they exited through the fire exit,” he further said, adding that he asked this question simply to remove any negative connotations about exiting the bank through the backdoor.
“No, sir. This is unusual,” Constantino said in a mix of Tagalog and English, when Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether she had seen another government agency withdraw that much cash.
Constantino said she personally supervised the four transactions between December 2022 and July 2023.
Constantino said government agencies that banked with the branch had largely shifted to electronic transactions.
“So far, they have all shifted to the online system. Transactions are usually made through ATM payroll, so they no longer make withdrawals that large,” she said.
She also said no government agency is exempt from the bank’s procedures for large cash withdrawals.
The OVP notified the branch in advance, allowing it to request the cash from its cash center because P125 million exceeded the branch’s normal cash and vault limits.
“Because prior advice had been given, it went through the bank’s process,” she said.
Constantino said the P125 million withdrawal was the largest cash transaction she encountered during her 32-year career at Landbank.
She told Sen. Risa Hontiveros the transaction stood out because the money was released entirely in cash instead of by check.
“It was unusual because the funds were withdrawn in cash. Other government agencies usually issue checks for disbursements rather than withdraw cash,” she said.
Asked when a withdrawal would generally be considered unusual, Constantino replied: “Let’s say if it is already over P500,000.”
She later clarified that whether a transaction is unusual depends on a client’s banking history but acknowledged the OVP withdrawal was the first cash transaction of that size handled by the Shaw Blvd. branch.
“If it is the first time we encounter an amount that large, it is unusual,” she said.
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/amp/story/cebu/ovps-p500m-cash-withdrawals-unusual
