[EDITORIAL] Impartial justice — ‘yan ang sinagasaan ng ‘trolling’ ni Pia Cayetano
The article discusses the controversy surrounding Senator Pia Cayetano’s sharing of a spliced video on Facebook that reverses the words of Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno during an impeachment hearing. The video, which claims the prosecution is 'nagbabasakali' (fabricating), has been criticized for undermining judicial integrity and impartiality. The article highlights concerns over the misuse of digital tools like deepfakes and spliced clips to distort public perception and influence legal processes. It notes that while some groups, such as Every Woman, urge Cayetano to withdraw her support for the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, others, including civil society group Tindig Pilipinas, have filed ethics complaints against her. The prosecution has chosen not to engage with the issue, focusing instead on its legal work. The piece raises broader questions about the role of legislators in maintaining impartiality during high-stakes legal proceedings.
Go to the primary sources (7)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Senator Erwin Tulfo stated that the request for detained Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada to participate in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial should be directed to the Sandiganbayan, the anti-graft court holding custody of the two senators. Tulfo emphasized that while the Senate should discuss the matter, the final decision lies with the Sandiganbayan, which has already denied Estrada's previous request to join the trial. Marcoleta had previously urged fellow senators to find ways to include him and Estrada in the impeachment proceedings. Both senators face plunder charges and remain in detention, though Tulfo noted they are still considered senators while their cases are pending.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion of the legal and procedural aspects surrounding the participation of detained senators in an impeachment trial. While the subject involves high-stakes politics, the framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal process and quoting multiple perspectives (T.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports Senator Erwin Tulfo's comments regarding the need to seek permission from the Sandiganbayan for detained senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada to participate in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. It aligns with other articles covering the same to
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting facts without editorializing or showing bias toward any party involved. It quotes Tulfo directly and does not take sides in the discussion.
Senator Rodante Marcoleta has called on his fellow senators to find ways to allow him and Senator Jinggoy Estrada, who are currently detained and facing nonbailable charges of plunder, to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Both Marcoleta and Estrada are members of the minority bloc in the Senate. Their detention raises questions about their ability to engage in legislative processes, particularly in high-profile cases like the impeachment trial. The situation highlights potential challenges in ensuring due process and participation for lawmakers who are under legal scrutiny.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a straightforward account of Senator Marcoleta’s request without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the legal status of two senators and their involvement in a significant political process, the impeachment trial, without using biased language or selectively omitte
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports Senator Rodante Marcoleta's request for his fellow senators to find ways for him and Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This is consistent with other articles on the subject.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, simply relaying Marcoleta's request without taking a position on its validity or implications.
Senator Rodante Marcoleta has called on his fellow senators to find ways for himself and detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. Both lawmakers, part of the minority bloc seen as supportive of Duterte, are facing plunder charges from the Sandiganbayan. The request comes amid ongoing legal proceedings against them, highlighting the intersection of personal legal issues and political accountability.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Marcoleta's call for participation in the impeachment trial without overtly endorsing or criticizing either side. It focuses on the procedural aspect of allowing detained legislators to take part, rather than taking a clear ideological stance. While the subject involves high-sta
Why factuality (95): The article accurately conveys Senator Rodante Marcoleta's call for his fellow senators to find ways for him and Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This is consistent with other articles reporting on Marcoleta's efforts.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, simply relaying Marcoleta's request without taking a stance on its feasibility or implications.
A former LandBank branch manager, Nenita Camposano, testified during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, describing the Department of Education's (DepEd) large cash withdrawal of P37.5 million as 'unusual.' This testimony comes amid ongoing scrutiny of alleged misuse of a confidential fund (CF) within Duterte's office. When questioned by Senator-judge Imee Marcos, Camposano clarified that while large withdrawals are common for both private and public clients at LandBank, the specific amount withdrawn by DepEd was unusually high for the agency. Earlier, she had stated that such withdrawals were regular occurrences, leading to confusion over whether her testimony implied approval or concern. This follows another LandBank employee, Violeta Constantino, who also noted the transaction was unusual. The testimony is part of the Senate's examination of allegations of financial misconduct linked to Duterte.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the conflicting interpretations of Camposano's testimony. It does not take a clear ideological stance on the impeachment proceedings or the allegations against Duterte. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal process and the ambiguity surrounding
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports that Nenita Camposano described the P37.5 million cash withdrawals by DepEd under Sara Duterte as 'unusual' during her testimony in the impeachment trial. It provides specific details such as the amount, the context of the impeachment trial, and the questioning by Sena
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting facts from the impeachment trial without overtly favoring any party. However, the headline uses the word 'also' implying prior testimony, which may slightly frame the narrative. The article avoids strong emotive language but focuses on repo
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 954 days ago
Rappler fact-checked a viral social media claim that Cagayan de Oro 1st District Representative Lordan Suan criticized Vice President Sara Duterte for visiting a hospital during an earthquake relief effort. The claim included a fabricated quote suggesting that such visits should be the President’s responsibility. Suan’s office denied the claim, stating he had never made such a statement. The false quote was similar to another debunked claim previously attributed to Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro. The image used in the post was taken from Duterte’s actual visit to a field hospital in Sarangani in June 2026. Additionally, Suan is part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment trial against Duterte, which is now in its fourth week.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a fact-check on a specific claim involving a politician and a public figure, providing balanced information by including both the claim and the denial from Suan’s office. It does not exhibit clear bias toward either side, focusing on verifying the accuracy of the statement and澄清
Why factuality (90): This article thoroughly investigates a false quote attributed to Lordan Suan, confirming through multiple sources that the quote was fabricated. It provides clear evidence of the misinformation and explains how it spread online. The content aligns closely with the facts and does not introduce any un
Why objectivity (95): The article is highly objective, presenting the findings without emotional language or personal opinion. It clearly distinguishes between the false claim and the verified reality, maintaining a balanced and informative tone throughout.
RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 90Objective 955 days ago
The article reports that two bank officials testified that the encashment of large funds by Vice President Sara Duterte's office was 'unusual.' This testimony comes amid ongoing scrutiny of her conduct, including her impeachment proceedings. The article also mentions other news items, such as Senator Pia Cayetano sharing a potentially misleading video, legal actions against individuals linked to a fugitive, and a senator submitting evidence regarding flood control projects. Additionally, it notes a tennis victory by Filipina player Alex Eala.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights the unusual financial activity of Vice President Sara Duterte, which is part of broader political scrutiny and potential impeachment efforts. While the focus is on the bank officials' testimony, the context suggests a critical stance toward Duterte's administration, aligning a
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the spliced video controversy involving Chel Diokno and Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, aligning closely with the primary source documents. It clearly identifies the altered nature of the video and explains the context, ensuring fidelity to the facts presented in the pr
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a high degree of neutrality, presenting the facts without editorializing or showing favoritism toward either side. It clearly distinguishes between the original statement and the altered version, avoiding any biased interpretation.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 955 days ago
An article from Rappler investigates a viral video that allegedly misrepresented the statement of Akbayan Representative and public prosecutor Chel Diokno during Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. The video, which has been shared widely on Facebook, appears to show Diokno admitting that the House prosecution was 'taking a chance' to obtain evidence against Duterte. However, the article reveals that the video had been spliced to alter the context of Diokno's remarks. According to the Senate's official records and the livestream of the trial, Diokno was clarifying that the prosecution's request for Duterte's financial records was not a 'fishing expedition,' as there was sufficient cause to proceed with the case. The article highlights that key parts of Diokno's original statement were removed from the spliced video to create a misleading impression. Diokno himself addressed the issue in a Facebook post, refuting the altered narrative.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the controversy surrounding the spliced video, citing both the altered version and the original statement from the Senate's records. It does not take a clear ideological stance but rather focuses on verifying the accuracy of the claims made in the video. As
Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the prosecution's proposal to alternate with the defense on evidence presentation, referencing the primary source documents. It provides context and quotes from the prosecution's manifest, maintaining alignment with the factual details from the primary sources.
Why objectivity (95): The article presents the situation objectively, discussing the proposal without taking sides or using emotionally charged language. It focuses on the procedural aspects of the trial, ensuring a balanced perspective.
A former branch manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Nenita Camposano, stated that the P37.5 million withdrawals made by the Department of Education during Vice President Sara Duterte’s tenure were 'unusual.' These withdrawals raised questions about their legitimacy and purpose, potentially indicating irregularities in financial transactions involving the education department.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights concerns over unusual financial transactions involving a high-ranking official (Vice President Sara Duterte), which implies scrutiny of her administration's conduct. The framing suggests potential impropriety without explicitly accusing any party, but the focus on questioning
Why factuality (90): The article accurately conveys that Nenita Camposano stated the P37.5 million withdrawals by DepEd under Sara Duterte were 'unusual.' It mentions the context of the impeachment trial and identifies Camposano as a former Land Bank branch manager. While less detailed than the first article, it aligns
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information in a straightforward manner, focusing on the statement made by Camposano. However, the headline uses the phrase 'WATCH: Ex-bank manager says...' which may imply a more dramatic or sensational angle compared to the first article. This slight framing could affect n
The prosecution team involved in the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte stated that the testimonies of two former Land Bank of the Philippines executives supported the allegations made by Ramil Madriaga, who was previously believed to be a close associate of Duterte. The comments were made during a press briefing following the latest session of the impeachment proceedings. The testimonies appear to provide additional evidence against Duterte, potentially strengthening the case brought forward by the prosecution.
Bias read (Progressive): The article discusses the impeachment trial of a high-ranking political figure, which is inherently politically charged. The framing suggests support for the prosecution's narrative, implying a potential bias toward the opposing side in the political spectrum. The emphasis on the testimonies bolster
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Violeta Constantino testified about the unusual nature of the P500 million withdrawal. This aligns with the primary source material, which includes similar testimonies regarding the large withdrawals.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the testimony in a neutral manner, focusing on the factual aspects of the withdrawal without introducing bias or emotional language.
Violeta Constantino, a former branch manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, testified during the 10th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial that a P500 million cash withdrawal made by the Office of the Vice President was 'unusual.' This testimony appears to be part of the ongoing legal proceedings against Duterte, focusing on potential financial improprieties related to her office.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a testimony provided during an impeachment trial involving a high-ranking official. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The framing remains neutral, simply relaying the statement made by the former bank manager
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Violeta Constantino testified about having never seen a P500 million withdrawal. This is consistent with the primary source material, which includes similar testimonies regarding the large withdrawals.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the testimony in a neutral manner, focusing on the factual aspects of the withdrawal without introducing bias or emotional language.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 805 days ago
During the 10th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, her defense team largely avoided cross-examining witnesses regarding the alleged unusual withdrawal of P500 million from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) account at Land Bank of the Philippines. Defense counsel Michael Poa stated that there were no questionable or damaging details in the testimonies of the witnesses, who identified the cheques but did not raise concerns about their legitimacy. The prosecution focused on allegations of misuse of confidential funds, citing the 'unusual' nature of the withdrawals. However, the defense argued that the term 'unusual' was merely the opinion of bank staff and not indicative of suspicious activity. According to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) guidelines, such large transactions should be reported, but the defense claimed the validity of the encashments was not under dispute.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the defense and prosecution perspectives without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both the defense and prosecution, providing balanced coverage of the impeachment trial. There is no evident bias in the language used or the selection of sources.
Why factuality (85): This article discusses the legal strategy of Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team during an impeachment trial, focusing on their decision not to cross-examine witnesses regarding a financial matter. It does not reference the AMLC guidelines or the GoTRACS regulations, so there is no direct com
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, presenting the defense team's reasoning without overt bias. While the article highlights the legal strategy, it avoids taking sides or expressing strong opinions about the case itself.
Rep. Joel Chua, leading the House prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, announced that evidence regarding her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds will be presented to the Senate impeachment court. The evidence includes documents, witness testimonies, and financial records collected over months of public hearings. These hearings investigated the handling of confidential funds by Duterte's office and the Department of Education, uncovering unverified recipient names and other irregularities. The findings formed part of the basis for the impeachment complaint. Chua emphasized that the trial should focus on factual evidence rather than political considerations.
Bias read (Center): While the subject involves high-level political figures and potential misconduct, the article presents the case as a legal proceeding focused on evidence and transparency. The framing emphasizes due process and factual presentation, avoiding overtly partisan language. The tone remains objective, and
Why factuality (85): The article provides detailed information about the House prosecution's plans to present evidence related to the P612.5 million confidential funds charge. It mentions the role of Rep. Joel Chua, the timeline of the inquiry, and findings such as unverified recipient names, which align with the cross-
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting the intentions and findings of the House prosecution without overt bias. However, it uses phrases like 'misuse' and 'alleged irregularities,' which carry some level of judgment, though not strongly partisan.
The trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its 10th day with the prosecution set to present its first witness regarding her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. The first witness, Violeta Constantino, a former Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) branch manager, will testify about transactions involving Duterte's special disbursing officer, Gina Acosta, who allegedly withdrew P125 million from December 2022 to September 2023. Another former LBP branch manager, Nenita Camposano, will follow with testimony about P32.5 million withdrawals linked to Duterte's former SDO in 2023. The scheduling of these testimonies was delayed due to procedural requests and the State of the Nation Address by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The prosecution requested the court to address each impeachment article sequentially, but the defense opposed this change, and the court proceeded with Article I.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the proceedings, detailing both the prosecution's plans and the defense's opposition to changes in the trial order. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omissions that would indicate a clear ideological lean. The focus is on陈述
Why factuality (80): The article covers the upcoming presentation of witnesses concerning the misuse of confidential funds. While the primary source does not provide detailed information about these witnesses or the specific amounts mentioned, the general topic is consistent with the ongoing trial. The article accuratel
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a balanced approach, reporting on the planned testimonies without showing favoritism towards either the prosecution or the defense. It uses straightforward language and avoids subjective commentary.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that the House prosecution panel plans to present testimony from LandBank officials regarding the handling of P612.5 million in confidential funds allegedly misused by Vice President Sara Duterte. The prosecution, led by House prosecutor Terry Ridon, intends to begin this phase of the impeachment proceedings on July 29, following the State of the Nation Address. Testimonies will include former LandBank branch managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano, who are expected to provide information on the processing and documentation of the funds. The case focuses on allegations of misuse during Duterte's tenure as Vice President and Education secretary, citing irregularities in fund disbursement and questionable recipient identifications. This marks a shift from previous evidence presented against Duterte's alleged threats toward political figures.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the impeachment proceedings as a legitimate legal process targeting Vice President Duterte, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the involvement of official sources like LandBank officials. While the tone remains objective, the focus on the prosecution's actions and the
Why factuality (80): The article covers the resumption of the trial and the planned presentation of evidence, which aligns with the primary source. It mentions the ethics complaint against Cayetano, providing relevant background.
Why objectivity (75): The article gives more attention to the prosecution's plans, possibly indicating a slight pro-prosecution tilt. It does not equally highlight the defense's arguments or procedural challenges.
Vice President Sara Duterte of the Philippines dismissed rumors of her resignation during an impeachment trial related to allegations of confidential fund misuse, unexplained wealth, and grave threat. She stated that resigning would betray the 32.2 million voters who supported her, emphasizing her commitment to her position. Duterte challenged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., telling him he could remove her if he wished. Her defense team also denied any discussions about resignation, reinforcing her stance. The impeachment process continued as the Senate impeachment court concluded reviewing evidence for Article IV.
Bias read (Center): While the article covers a politically sensitive impeachment proceeding involving high-profile figures, the framing remains balanced. Duterte's statements are presented objectively without overtly positive or negative language. The article does not show clear ideological leaning toward either side,雖
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports on Senator-judge Pia Cayetano's social media post and the response from the House prosecution spokesperson. It provides context about the implications of the post and the concerns raised, aligning with the primary source document.
Why objectivity (65): While the article is factual, it carries a slightly critical tone toward Senator-judge Cayetano, suggesting potential bias. The focus on the controversy surrounding her post leans toward a particular viewpoint.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian stated that detained Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada have not formally requested to participate in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The statement comes amid ongoing legal proceedings against Marcoleta and Estrada, who face plunder charges. The impeachment trial is part of a broader political controversy surrounding Vice President Duterte. The lack of formal requests suggests potential procedural delays or strategic considerations in the legislative process.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the status of the impeachment trial and the actions of detained senators without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the procedural stance of Senate President Gatchalian without editorializing or emphasizing particular political agendas.
Why factuality (75): The article mentions that Estrada and Marcoleta have not submitted a formal request to join the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte. However, it lacks specific dates or legal reasoning compared to the more detailed Rappler article. It does not contradict the cross-source consensus but omits some co
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, reporting statements made by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian without editorializing or showing favor toward either side. It avoids emotionally charged language and sticks to factual reporting.
The prosecution team involved in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has raised concerns about a spliced video shared by Senator Pia Cayetano on social media. The video appears to edit segments from Representative Chel Diokno's oral arguments during the trial, creating the impression that Diokno suggested the prosecution lacked evidence and was conducting a 'fishing expedition.' Lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr., representing the prosecution, expressed worry that the altered video could mislead the public and create the false impression that members of the impeachment court had already formed opinions on the case. He emphasized that the prosecution aims to remain impartial as required by impeachment rules and does not wish to accuse or embarrass any members of the court. The video includes text overlays that further distort the original context of Diokno's statements.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the concerns of the prosecution regarding the misleading video without overtly favoring either side. It quotes the prosecution's perspective while describing the content of the video and its potential impact, maintaining neutrality in tone and avoiding explicit endorsement or批评.
Why factuality (75): The article describes the testimony of former bank officials and the lack of suspicion surrounding large check encashments. It includes relevant details about banking guidelines and the AMLC requirements, though it briefly diverges into unrelated topics.
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains objective, focusing on the testimonies and procedures. It presents the information without clear bias, though it occasionally shifts focus to other related issues.
GMA News OnlineIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 706 days ago
Senator Leila de Lima has stated that the Senate court should find ways for her and Senator Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of former President Rodrigo Duterte's daughter, Sara Duterte. De Lima emphasized the importance of their involvement in the proceedings, suggesting that they should be allowed to take part despite any procedural challenges.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a statement from Senator Leila de Lima regarding her desire to participate in the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte. The content does not exhibit clear bias toward either side of the political spectrum, focusing on the senator's request rather than endorsing or criticizing any立场
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports Vice President Duterte's denial of resignation and her comments on the impeachment trial. It includes quotes from her and her defense team, aligning with the primary source document's timeline and content.
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting Duterte's statements without apparent bias. It reports on her position and the defense's stance without injecting personal opinions.
House prosecutor Terry Ridon announced that subpoenaed bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, will be used to assess whether their declared wealth aligns with their documented income and financial activities. The investigation focuses on comparing three data sets: the couple's post-tax income, Duterte's 2024 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) declaring P88.5 million, and the P6.7 billion in financial transactions reported by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Ridon emphasized that discrepancies between these figures could suggest unexplained wealth, and the bank records would validate the AMLC's findings by revealing underlying transactions. The inquiry aims to determine if Duterte's assets are legally sourced and consistent with her reported income.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal process and procedural justification for examining financial records, without overtly criticizing or praising Vice President Duterte. It emphasizes the role of official authorities (House prosecutor, AMLC) and provides factual context about the financial investigation.
Why factuality (75): This article accurately reports on the advocacy group Pinoy Aksyon's reaction to the subpoena of Duterte's records. It includes direct quotes from the group's chairperson and aligns with the primary source document. The article provides context about the importance of the documents in the impeachmen
Why objectivity (70): The article is neutral in tone, presenting the group's perspective without taking a partisan stance. It allows readers to understand the rationale behind the subpoena without injecting personal opinion.
RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 655 days ago
During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, former LandBank manager Violeta Constantino testified that two Office of the Vice President officials, Gina Acosta and Lemuel Ortonio, handed over P125 million in cash in four bags on December 20, 2022. This corroborates claims by Duterte's alleged bagman Ramil Madriaga, who stated he received the cash from Acosta and security officer Raymund Lachica to distribute to others within 24 hours. The timing aligns with the check's encashment time, and both accounts describe similar bag characteristics. Prosecution spokesperson Ace Barbers noted the consistency between Constantino's testimony and Madriaga's claims, suggesting they refer to the same event. The proximity of the LandBank branch to the Department of Education compound, where the transaction allegedly occurred, adds to the narrative.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the testimony as supporting the prosecution's case against Vice President Sara Duterte, emphasizing the credibility of the allegations through alignment between different witnesses. While the facts are presented neutrally, the focus on the impeachment proceedings and the potential
Why factuality (75): The article reports on a former bank official's testimony corroborating claims made by Ramil Madriaga regarding the transfer of P125 million in cash via four bags. It references specific dates and individuals involved, aligning with the cross-source consensus that these events occurred. However, it
Why objectivity (65): The article presents the testimony and claims in a somewhat narrative style, emphasizing the significance of the four bags and linking them to the broader impeachment case. While it remains focused on facts, there is a slight倾向 toward highlighting the implications of the testimony, which may suggest
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
![[EDITORIAL] Impartial justice — ‘yan ang sinagasaan ng ‘trolling’ ni Pia Cayetano](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2026%2F06%2FErwin-Tulfo-16June2026.jpg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
PH
