Highlights: Day 5 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | July 14, 2026

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 954 days ago

Rep. Chel Diokno, a House prosecutor, stated that financial records from Vice President Sara Duterte's time as Davao City vice mayor and mayor show significant increases in her financial activity, which are central to the second article of impeachment against her. According to an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report cited by Diokno, Duterte's transactions rose sharply beginning in 2007, reaching over P208 million annually, and continued to exceed P400 million per year between 2009 and 2013. These figures are being used to argue that her financial activities during her tenure as a public official are directly relevant to the impeachment charges alleging that she amassed unexplained wealth disproportionate to her legal earnings. The prosecution requested subpoenas for detailed financial records, including bank statements, AMLC reports, and tax documents, to investigate further and ensure the court can make a decision based on complete evidence.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information regarding financial records and their relevance to an ongoing impeachment process involving a high-ranking official. It does not exhibit overt bias, as it focuses on citing specific data from an official source (AMLC report) and outlines the prosecution's use

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the testimony of NBI agent John Mark Calilung and the context of the alleged assassination threats by VP Duterte. It aligns with the primary sources that describe the presentation of evidence and the defense's objections.

Why objectivity (95): The article is completely neutral, presenting the facts of the testimony and the legal objections without bias. It avoids any subjective interpretation or commentary.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 909 days ago

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that Zuleika Lopez, the Chief of Staff to the Office of the Vice President and Undersecretary, may face legal consequences if she fails to comply with a Senate impeachment court subpoena requiring her to testify as a witness in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. The impeachment court spokesperson, Atty. Regie Tongol, stated that Lopez could be required to explain why she should not be cited for contempt if she does not appear as directed. The subpoena mandates her appearance on July 13 and 14, ensuring her availability for potential schedule changes. Although Lopez is scheduled to testify on July 14, Tongol emphasized that due process requires her to be given the opportunity to explain non-compliance before any contempt citation is issued. Lopez, who is closely associated with Duterte, is part of the prosecution's witness list, but Tongol noted that the prosecution would need to formally declare her a hostile witness before she is treated as such.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information about the legal procedures surrounding a subpoena in an impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It provides factual statements from the impeachment court spokesperson regarding the possible consequences of non-compliance, while also noting procedural,

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the subpoena issued to Zuleika Lopez and the potential consequences if she fails to comply. It references the specific article of impeachment (Article IV) and provides context about the nature of the charges. The details align with the primary source documents about

Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting facts without apparent bias. It quotes the spokesperson of the impeachment court directly and does not editorialize or take sides in the trial.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 902 days ago

The Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its second week with a shift in focus from witness testimony to a critical legal debate regarding access to her financial records. The prosecution requested the subpoena of her bank accounts, tax returns, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) documents to support allegations of unexplained wealth under Article II of the impeachment charges. The defense opposed this, arguing it would violate Duterte’s rights to confidentiality and due process, calling it a 'fishing expedition.' The court postponed its decision on the matter until July 20. Meanwhile, the prosecution streamlined its witness list for the grave-threats charge, reducing it to NBI Director Melvin Matibag. Outside the courtroom, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) announced a new probe into the 2019 SEA Games sports complex, drawing criticism from some senator-judges, while the Supreme Court addressed individuals cited for indirect contempt related to comments on the impeachment proceedings.

Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the legal arguments between the prosecution and defense without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the procedural steps of the impeachment trial and includes perspectives from both parties without using biased language or selective sourcing.

Why factuality (90): The article accurately fact-checks the claim about the Supreme Court invalidating the impeachment proceedings, clearly distinguishing between past and current cases. It references the correct legal context and clarifies the misinformation in the video, aligning with the primary source.

Why objectivity (90): The article presents the fact-check in a clear, unbiased manner, avoiding any emotional language or subjective interpretation. It focuses solely on the factual clarification of the claim.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentProgressiveFactual 90Objective 854 days ago

The House of Representatives' prosecution team, led by lawyer Jay Tolosa, announced plans to request subpoenas for Vice President Sara Duterte's bank records and tax returns early in her impeachment trial. This move aims to prevent potential delays caused by legal challenges to accessing these documents, which are central to the second article of impeachment related to unexplained wealth. The prosecution emphasized that these documents—such as SALNs (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth), Anti-Money Laundering Council (AML) records, and bank statements—are critical to supporting the charges against Duterte. They noted that the volume and complexity of the evidence require early preparation to ensure continuous presentation during the trial. Additionally, the AMLC reported suspicious financial activity involving Duterte and her husband, including large inflows and outflows totaling over P10 billion.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the impeachment proceedings as a legitimate legal process aimed at addressing allegations of unexplained wealth against Vice President Sara Duterte. It emphasizes the prosecution's proactive approach to securing evidence and highlights the significance of the documents being used,

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reflects the prosecution's strategy to subpoena financial records early to prevent delays, as outlined in the primary source. It includes direct quotes from Jay Tolosa and references to the legal framework supporting the request. The information is consistent with the trial's

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a balanced perspective, reporting on both the prosecution's rationale and the potential concerns of the defense. It avoids taking sides and presents the arguments objectively, focusing on the procedural aspects of the trial.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 854 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team has refused to allow the Senate Impeachment Court to subpoena her bank and tax records during her impeachment trial, arguing that it would violate confidentiality laws. Defense counsel Michael Poa emphasized that impeachment does not grant unlimited access to private information and stressed that due process must be upheld. He cited several laws, including the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the National Internal Revenue Code, which protect taxpayer and banking confidentiality. Poa noted that while there is an exception for impeachment in the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, it does not override constitutional protections. In contrast, House prosecution panel member Rep. Chel Diokno argued that the impeachment court has the authority to obtain such documents to uncover the truth.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the debate without overtly favoring one perspective. The defense argues for privacy rights and due process, while the prosecution asserts the need for transparency. Neither side dominates the narrative, and the language remains balanced between the two positions. S

Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the defense's stance on bank and tax secrecy, quoting Michael Poa's arguments and referencing relevant laws. This aligns closely with the primary source document, which outlines the legal basis for the defense's position. The details are supported by the trial transc

Why objectivity (85): The article presents the defense's arguments without apparent bias, using neutral language and quoting both sides. While there is some emphasis on the legal complexities, it remains objective and does not appear to favor either party.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 855 days ago

On July 14, 2026, the fifth day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial in the Philippine Senate, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official Jeremy Lotoc testified that the investigation into Duterte's alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and others included considerations of her relationship with former President Rodrigo Duterte and his pending International Criminal Court (ICC) case over alleged extrajudicial killings. During cross-examination, Lotoc admitted lacking direct evidence that Duterte had hired someone to carry out the threats but stated the NBI's collected evidence linked her to the plot. The defense argued that typographical errors and inconsistencies in documents did not affect the NBI's conclusions regarding grave threats and incitement to sedition. The prosecution also faced criticism for seeking to call additional witnesses, which the defense claimed were redundant. Meanwhile, NBI Director Melvin Matibag explained the rescheduling of his testimony due to an FBI-hosted summit, moving it to July 20. Duterte herself denied the allegations, citing lack of supporting evidence.

Bias read (Center): The article presents balanced reporting by including perspectives from both the prosecution and defense, quoting multiple officials and legal figures without overtly favoring one side. While the impeachment trial itself is a politically charged issue, the reporting does not exhibit clear ideological

Why factuality (90): The article accurately summarizes the testimony of the NBI official and the defense's cross-examination. It aligns closely with the primary source material about the trial's proceedings and the evidence being presented.

Why objectivity (85): The article presents the facts neutrally, quoting both the prosecution and defense without overtly favoring either side. It avoids emotional language and maintains a balanced tone.

GMA News OnlineIndependentProgressiveFactual 90Objective 856 days ago

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has reportedly concluded that Sara Duterte had both the intent, motive, and capability to carry out threats against Ferdinand Marcos Jr., according to a witness cited by GMA News Online. The report suggests that the investigation into alleged threats against former President Ferdinand Marcos has identified Sara Duterte as a potential perpetrator. The claim was presented as part of ongoing legal proceedings related to the case. No specific evidence or further details were provided in the report.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the allegations against Sara Duterte in a manner that implies her involvement in threatening actions against a political figure, which could be interpreted as aligning with narratives critical of the Marcos family. While the article does not explicitly take a stance, the focus on薩

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reflects the NBI agent's testimony and the legal basis for the investigation, as detailed in the primary source. It includes direct quotes and explanations of the NBI's mandate, ensuring fidelity to the trial proceedings.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the testimony and legal justification without expressing personal judgment. It focuses on the facts and the procedural aspects of the investigation.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 858 days ago

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its second week, with House Prosecutor and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima stating that the next witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, would provide additional support to the prosecution's case. This follows the earlier testimony of NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, who helped authenticate video recordings allegedly showing Duterte making threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. De Lima explained that Lotoc's testimony would clarify how the evidence was evaluated and why the case was referred to the Department of Justice. The prosecution also plans to call other witnesses, including House of Representatives' Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms Captain Belinda Bello and Vice President Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez, in the coming weeks.

Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the impeachment proceedings, quoting statements from Rep. Leila de Lima and noting the planned testimonies without overtly favoring either side. It focuses on the procedural aspects of the trial and the roles of various witnesses, avoiding explicit bias or煽

Why factuality (90): The article accurately summarizes the second day of the trial, including the denial of defense motions, the screening of the video, and the testimony of NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung. It aligns with the primary source document and provides detailed information about the trial's progress.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains an objective tone, presenting the events of the trial without emotional language or bias. It clearly separates the facts from any interpretive commentary.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 805 days ago

Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, representing the House of Representatives' prosecution team, stated that the team will no longer call Zuleika Lopez, the Office of the Vice President's chief-of-staff, as a witness in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Kapunan argued that Lopez's testimony would be redundant, as similar information has already been provided by other witnesses, including Capt. Belinda Bello, who was involved in security matters during Duterte's time in the House. The prosecution initially planned to present Lopez as a hostile witness due to her role in discussions around Article IV of the impeachment charges, which allege betrayal of public trust based on Duterte's alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and others. Lopez was detained in November 2024 for allegedly interfering with an investigation into alleged financial misconduct within Duterte's office, which reportedly led to Duterte's verbal attacks on Marcos and Romualdez.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the decision of the prosecution team to drop Zuleika Lopez as a witness, citing redundancy rather than any overt ideological slant. It provides factual background on the impeachment proceedings and the reasons behind the decision without taking a clear partisan stance. The tone,

Why factuality (85): The article accurately states that the NBI found no validated information on the alleged hitman. It aligns with other sources reporting similar findings, though it lacks deeper analysis of the implications.

Why objectivity (80): The article is straightforward and factual, but it doesn't explore potential biases or alternative interpretations of the NBI's findings.

RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 805 days ago

During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, an NBI official named Jeremy Lotoc testified that the agency did not find evidence of threats against her life. Lotoc explained that the NBI only identified the removal of 75 personnel from her security detail as a relevant security issue. He noted that Duterte did not appear before the NBI, and thus no further information was provided. The defense had previously argued that the lack of security threats undermined the impeachment charge of grave threats against the Marcos family. However, Lotoc clarified that the term 'Romanov' was first used by Duterte's brother, Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte, in a public critique of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The defense also raised concerns about potential bias in the NBI's investigation.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the testimony from both the prosecution and defense perspectives. It reports on the NBI's findings without overtly favoring either side, though it highlights the defense's arguments regarding perceived bias. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the fact

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the NBI official's statement that no threats against Sara Duterte were found, citing specific details from the trial such as the reduction of 75 security personnel. However, it lacks complete context about the broader implications of the findings.

Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the NBI official's statements without overt bias. However, it focuses primarily on the NBI's perspective without providing counterpoints or additional context.

GMA News OnlineIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 807 days ago

The article reports that Senator Antonio 'Tony' Lacson has proposed allowing witnesses to testify on-site during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This move aims to expedite the proceedings by reducing delays associated with bringing witnesses to court. The proposal reflects ongoing debates within the Philippine Senate regarding procedural efficiency in high-profile political cases.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a procedural proposal without overtly endorsing or criticizing either side of the impeachment process. It focuses on a specific legislative action rather than taking a partisan stance. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the procedural aspect rather than expressing judgment

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that the defense team was unaware of the SC petition. It aligns with other sources discussing the lack of knowledge among the defense team regarding the petition.

Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information objectively, focusing on the defense team's admission without injecting personal opinions or bias.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 854 days ago

Akbayan party-list Representative Chel Diokno argued that the Supreme Court's ruling on the first impeachment attempt against Vice President Sara Duterte does not apply to the current legal proceedings involving the subpoena of her bank and tax records. This is because the initial impeachment effort used a 'fast-track' method, where the Articles of Impeachment were directly sent to the Senate after obtaining the signatures of at least one-third of the House members. Diokno clarified that the Supreme Court's decision focused specifically on the fast-track process and did not address the current situation, which involves a different legal approach. He countered defense lawyer Michael Poa's argument that the prosecution's request for extensive financial records was overly broad, emphasizing that the court's previous ruling was limited to the specific circumstances of the earlier impeachment attempt.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the legal debate regarding the impeachment process and the subpoena of financial records. It includes statements from both the prosecution (Rep. Chel Diokno) and the defense (Michael Poa), providing their respective arguments without overtly favoring one over the其他

Why factuality (80): The article accurately explains the distinction between the current impeachment process and the previous one that was deemed unconstitutional. It references the SC ruling and clarifies the differences in procedures, aligning with the primary source documents.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a highly neutral stance, presenting the legal arguments from both sides without injecting any personal opinion or bias.

GMA News OnlineIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 856 days ago

The article reports on the impeachment trial related to former Vice President Sara Duterte, where the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) stated they could not find any validated information regarding allegations that she was involved with a hitman. The report highlights the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claims against her during the impeachment proceedings.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the findings of the NBI without overtly criticizing or praising the accused, focusing on the absence of validated information rather than taking a clear ideological stance. It does not emphasize particular political narratives or frame the issue through a specific ideological sl

Why factuality (80): The article mentions Lacson's desire for faster proceedings by having witnesses on-site, which is a factual claim. However, it doesn't elaborate on the reasons behind this request or its impact on the trial.

Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral in tone, simply stating Lacson's request without taking sides or adding subjective commentary.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 859 days ago

Rep. Janette Garin responded to Vice President Sara Duterte's assertion that impeachment discussions are being used for political purposes, emphasizing that the process is rooted in accountability rather than partisan motives. Garin stated that pursuing impeachment cases is a constitutional duty of lawmakers, particularly after establishing probable cause against Duterte. She argued that elected officials, including Duterte, bear significant responsibilities and must uphold high ethical standards. Duterte, meanwhile, urged government officials to cease engaging in politics and instead concentrate on resolving issues related to peace, security, and economic challenges. This exchange occurred amid the ongoing impeachment trial of Duterte in the Senate.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives without overtly favoring one side. It includes direct quotes from both Garin and Duterte, allowing readers to form their own conclusions based on the arguments made by each party involved. There is no evident bias in the language or framing of the content.

Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports Deputy Speaker Garin's response to Sara Duterte's criticisms, aligning with the primary source documents. It presents the arguments from both sides without adding personal interpretation.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a strong neutral tone, presenting Garin's arguments without showing favoritism or bias toward either the prosecution or the defense.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 709 days ago

Philippine Representative Joel Chua has addressed Vice President Sara Duterte, urging her to clarify the identity of Mary Grace Piattos, whose existence has been questioned by authorities. Chua highlighted that the public is awaiting Duterte's explanation regarding Piattos' involvement in alleged financial misconduct linked to anti-money laundering investigations. The discussion arose amid Duterte's recent remarks calling on government officials to avoid politicization and focus on governance. Chua, part of the House of Representatives' prosecution team during Duterte's impeachment trial, emphasized that the public expects transparency and accountability, particularly concerning the P6.7 billion in transactions under scrutiny. The controversy surrounding Piattos emerged during congressional investigations into potential misuse of confidential funds, with some lawmakers suggesting the names on acknowledgment receipts might be fictitious.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue around the need for transparency and accountability, aligning with progressive values. It emphasizes the public's expectation for Duterte to address allegations, implying criticism of her leadership and the government's handling of corruption. The focus on exposing ficti

Why factuality (80): The article accurately reflects the Palace's rejection of Duterte's call to stop 'politicking.' It aligns with the primary source documents that mention the Palace's response to Duterte's comments.

Why objectivity (70): The article takes a clear stance in favor of the Palace's position, using phrases like 'betrayal of the public trust' which can be seen as biased. It frames the impeachment as a constitutional obligation rather than a political maneuver.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 804 days ago

The Philippine House of Representatives' impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte have seen the announcement of the first three witnesses who will testify regarding her alleged misuse of confidential funds. These include Marivic Pareja, head of the House's Legislative Archives and Museum Management Service, and two former Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) branch managers, Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano. The testimony focuses on allegations involving P612.5 million in confidential funds, including P500 million linked to the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million tied to the Department of Education (DepEd) during Duterte's tenure as education secretary. The witnesses are expected to provide information on financial transactions, including withdrawals and transfers allegedly connected to Duterte's office.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the impeachment process and the witnesses involved without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the allegations and the individuals testifying but does not employ biased language or selectively omit context. The content remains neutral in tone,陈述

Why factuality (75): The article provides accurate information about the witnesses scheduled to testify regarding the misuse of confidential funds. It aligns with the primary source documents that mention the focus shifting from Article IV to Article I. However, it omits details about the earlier stages of the trial inv

Why objectivity (80): The article remains objective in reporting the planned testimony schedule and the nature of the evidence to be presented without showing favoritism toward either side.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 805 days ago

Bicol Saro party-list representative Terry Ridon criticized Vice President Sara Duterte's legal team during the impeachment trial of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., accusing them of failing to effectively challenge claims of threats against Marcos, his wife Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. Ridon called on the lawyers to improve their questioning of witnesses to prove that such threats did not exist. The article notes that Sara Duterte has previously maintained that the allegations of a 'kill plot' against Marcos lack supporting evidence.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the criticism of Sara Duterte's legal team as a call for more effective advocacy, implying that her position lacks sufficient support. The emphasis on the failure of the legal team to disprove threats suggests a potential bias toward the Marcos administration's narrative. While it

Why factuality (75): The article accurately summarizes the challenge posed by the opposition to the defense's cross-examination. It aligns with the primary source material about the trial's proceedings and the defense's performance.

Why objectivity (80): The article presents the situation neutrally, reporting the challenge without overtly favoring either side. It uses direct language but remains relatively objective.

RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 603 days ago

The article discusses the media's tendency to label high-profile legal cases as the 'trial of the century,' using the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as a recent example. It critiques how journalists often use hyperbolic language to frame such trials, noting that similar labels have been applied to past cases like the 2001 trial of former President Joseph Estrada and the 1990s cases involving figures like Bill Clinton. The article highlights how the term is used to emphasize the significance of the current trial, despite its historical imprecision. It also notes that while the trial has drawn significant attention, the media's framing may overshadow the actual legal and political implications.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced critique of media framing without overtly favoring any political side. It analyzes how different outlets and historical examples use the 'trial of the century' label, pointing out both its prevalence and its potential exaggeration. While it acknowledges the gravity of

Why factuality (75): The article references the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, aligning with the primary source document. However, it lacks specific details about the trial's timeline, charges, or procedural aspects mentioned in the primary source. It uses phrases like 'trial of the century' which are

Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'trial of the century' and frames the event as a 'political spectacle,' suggesting a biased perspective. It also highlights the media's role in shaping the narrative, which introduces a subjective angle. The tone leans towards sensationalism rath

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 754 days ago

Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, representing the prosecution in the Senate Impeachment Court case against Vice President Sara Duterte, argues that calls for balance and impartiality should apply equally to senator-judges as they do to the prosecution and defense. She criticized the idea that senator-judges could express their opinions or draw legal conclusions outside the courtroom, suggesting that such actions might undermine the perceived neutrality of the process. Kapunan emphasized that while the prosecution and defense can challenge each other's statements during proceedings, they lack the same ability to respond to statements made by senator-judges. This discrepancy, she argued, creates an imbalance in the judicial process. Her comments followed remarks by some senator-judges who suggested that certain statements should be made outside the impeachment court.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the perspectives of both the prosecution and the senator-judges without overtly favoring one side. It reports on a debate over procedural fairness within the Senate Impeachment Court, focusing on the principle of balance rather than taking a stance on the issue itself. There is

Why factuality (70): The article discusses the prosecution's response to the senator-judges' comments about balance and impartiality. While it accurately represents the content of the briefing, it lacks specific contextual details from the primary source documents about the actual trial proceedings and evidence presente

Why objectivity (75): The article presents the prosecution's perspective without significant bias but leans slightly towards supporting their position by emphasizing the need for balance among all parties involved in the trial.

RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 70Objective 659 days ago

The article discusses the ongoing impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte, which faced delays due to legal challenges and procedural disputes. The Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives had initiated the impeachment process too soon, citing constitutional requirements. This led to a delay in the trial. Former Senate President Chiz Escudero, who initially opposed moving forward with the trial, later switched sides to support the current majority, raising questions about potential political deals or horse-trading within Congress. Both Escudero and Senator Joel Villanueva are under investigation for alleged involvement in corruption related to flood control projects during the administration of Duterte's father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Bias read (Progressive): The article criticizes political figures involved in delaying the impeachment process and highlights concerns about corruption and horse-trading in Congress. The tone suggests skepticism toward the actions of Escudero and others, implying they may be acting out of self-interest rather than principle

Why factuality (70): The article accurately describes the challenges faced in initiating the impeachment trial, including the Supreme Court's ruling and Escudero's role. However, it contains some speculative commentary about Escudero's actions.

Why objectivity (65): The article exhibits a mild bias by criticizing Escudero's handling of the trial and suggesting motives behind his decisions, which could influence reader perception.