Highlights: Day 23 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | Sept. 8, 2026
Day 23 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial focused on procedural developments, including the potential adjustment of the voting threshold for conviction and the shift to Article II, which addresses allegations of unexplained wealth. Presiding officer Senator-judge Francis Escudero announced that amici curiae will be heard on September 16, with oral arguments scheduled for September 23. The Senate is expected to decide whether to maintain the 24-member voting base amid concerns about senator participation due to absences. On the evidentiary side, the prosecution plans to skip remaining witnesses for Article I and instead call Duterte herself to testify, though her defense lawyer objected, citing constitutional protections against self-incrimination. The court has set September 14 for Article II proceedings, which involve over 1,800 documents, including financial records, to be marked by September 9 and 10. The defense has 15 days to respond to the prosecution's request for admission regarding these documents.
Advertisement
Go to the primary sources (3)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Representative Terry Ridon denied claims by Vice President Sara Duterte that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. controls the Senate and judicial authorities. Ridon asserted that senators serving as judges in Duterte's impeachment trial will base their decisions solely on evidence, rejecting her assertion of external control. Duterte faces impeachment over allegations including misuse of funds, unexplained wealth, bribery, and grave threats. She was recently arrested on charges related to threats made against Marcos Jr. and others, though she has since posted bail.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both Duterte's claims of external influence and Ridon's rebuttal without overtly favoring either side. The framing remains balanced, focusing on the legal proceedings and factual assertions rather than taking a clear ideological stance. The emphasis is on the procedural aspects,
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports Rep. Terry Ridon's rejection of Duterte's claims, citing his direct statements. It aligns with the cross-source consensus that the senator-judges are not influenced by Marcos.
Why objectivity (95): The article remains highly neutral, presenting Ridon's statements without bias or additional commentary. It provides context about Duterte's legal situation without taking sides.
In the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, prosecution lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr. requested the impeachment court to declare lawyer Michael Poa as a hostile witness during Poa's testimony, which began on September 2, 2026. Tolosa also presented a 13-point outline detailing Poa's role as the former chief of staff of the Department of Education. The request suggests the prosecution believes Poa's testimony could be biased or obstructive to their case. This development highlights ongoing legal tensions within the impeachment proceedings, where witness credibility plays a crucial role.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the prosecution's request to declare Poa a 'hostile witness' as a strategic move, implying potential bias or obstruction. While the term 'hostile witness' is legally neutral, the emphasis on the prosecution's proactive stance and the detailed presentation of Poa's role suggest a倾向
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the prosecution's request to declare Michael Poa a hostile witness and outlines the 13-point offer of testimony. It provides a clear and concise summary of the events without adding unverified information.
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a completely neutral tone, presenting the facts without bias or emotional language. It focuses solely on reporting the events as they occurred.
The article introduces Lindon Bacquel, a defense lawyer representing Vice President Sara Duterte during her impeachment trial in the Senate. Bacquel is identified as a senior associate at the Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar (FNS) Law Firm, which is noted to be part of the legal team defending Duterte. The piece provides basic information about Bacquel’s professional affiliation but does not delve into broader implications or context surrounding the impeachment proceedings.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about a defense lawyer involved in a high-profile political case without overtly favoring any side. It focuses on professional background rather than taking a stance on the impeachment itself, thus maintaining a balanced frame.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately introduces Lindon Bacquel as a defense lawyer representing Vice President Sara Duterte. It provides relevant background information without adding unnecessary details or speculation.
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a completely neutral tone, presenting the facts without bias or emotional language. It focuses solely on reporting the information about Lindon Bacquel.
Former Department of Education spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa testified as a hostile witness during the 21st day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial in the Senate. Poa stated that the proceedings were 'fair' despite tense exchanges, particularly during questioning by the prosecution regarding his knowledge of the Department of Education's confidential fund usage. He expressed gratitude toward both the prosecution and defense counsel, noting that while tensions arose during the trial, there was no personal animosity between legal representatives. Defense deputy spokesperson Atty. Justin Gular emphasized that legal professionals operate with mutual respect, even when opposing each other in court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the impeachment trial, focusing on the testimony of Atty. Michael Poa and the interactions between prosecution and defense teams. While the subject matter is politically charged due to the impeachment process, the framing remains neutral, avoiding overtly褒贬
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on Michael Poa's testimony and his comments regarding the fairness of the proceedings. It includes direct quotes from Poa and Atty. Justin Gular, providing a reliable account of the events. The article also correctly notes Poa's temporary departure from his role as def
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a largely neutral tone, though it includes some direct quotes that reflect the perspectives of the individuals involved. Overall, it avoids overt bias and presents the information in a balanced manner.
A witness testifying at the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte stated that no funds from the Office of the Vice President, the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, the Department of Education, or other associated offices were allocated to the 2023 Youth Leadership Summit or its related information education campaign. The summit aimed to prevent the recruitment of young people into violent extremist groups and was conducted in regions affected by insurgent activities. The program has been ongoing since 2002.
Bias read (Center): The article presents testimony from an armed forces officer regarding funding claims during an impeachment trial. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omissions that would indicate a clear ideological lean. The content remains focused on presenting the testimony and is
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports that presiding officer Escudero clarified that a viral image of Ortonio wearing an earpiece was fake and AI-generated. This aligns with the primary source documents, which mention Escudero's clarification.
Why objectivity (95): The article is neutral in tone, presenting the clarification from Escudero without bias or subjective interpretation.
On the 20th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, the prosecution introduced Armed Forces of the Philippines Colonel Manaros Boransing II as a witness to testify regarding allegations that the AFP received financial assistance or monetary rewards from the Department of Education. The testimony focuses on Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of misconduct related to her role as a public official. The trial continues as part of a broader legal process examining potential violations of public trust and ethical standards by high-ranking officials.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the impeachment trial without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the procedural aspect of the trial and the introduction of a witness, without commentary on the merits of the case or the credibility of either side. The framing remains客观,
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the testimony of Colonel Manaros Boransing II and his role in the impeachment trial. It provides a clear and concise summary of the events without adding unverified information.
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a highly neutral tone throughout, presenting the facts without bias or emotional language. It focuses solely on reporting the events of the trial.
The article reports on the eighth week of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte in the Philippine Senate. On August 25, a key testimony was delivered by Lemuel Ortonio, the Office of the Vice President Assistant Chief of Staff, who was identified as a hostile witness. Ortonio testified that Vice President Duterte was aware of and had approved all activities related to certain matters under investigation. This testimony is part of the ongoing proceedings aimed at determining whether Duterte should be impeached for alleged misconduct.
Bias read (Conservative): The article presents testimony suggesting that Vice President Duterte was fully informed and authorized actions, which could imply premeditation or lack of oversight. The framing emphasizes her knowledge and approval, potentially casting her in a negative light, aligning with a more critical stance.
Why factuality (90): The article accurately summarizes the key points from the impeachment trial, focusing on the testimony of Lemuel Ortonio and the implications for Vice President Sara Duterte. It provides clear and concise information without adding unverified details or speculation.
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a highly neutral and objective tone throughout, presenting the facts without bias or emotional language. It avoids taking sides and focuses solely on reporting the events of the trial.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 8512 days ago
The prosecution has moved up the presentation of the unexplained wealth case against Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial. Originally scheduled after addressing allegations of confidential fund misuse, the case will now be presented following the completion of the latter. Lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro stated that the order could be adjusted based on witness availability and relevance, citing that evidence linking unexplained wealth to bribery is less direct. The House impeachment hearings highlighted discrepancies between Duterte's reported net worth and large bank transactions, with the Anti-Money Laundering Council noting suspicious transactions totaling P6.77 billion from 2006 to 2025. Duterte's legal team challenged the interpretation of these figures, arguing that aggregating inflows and outflows over two decades leads to inflated totals. Despite substantial bank activity, Duterte's average net worth remained around P42 million over 15 years, with no cash deposits recorded from 2019 to 2024.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments in the impeachment proceedings without overtly favoring either side. It includes both the prosecution's reasoning for advancing the unexplained wealth case and the defense's challenge to the interpretation of financial data. While the subject matter is high-
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports the prosecution's decision to move up the unexplained wealth case, citing lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro. It includes specific details about the P6.77 billion in suspicious transactions and mentions 15 potential witnesses. The article acknowledges it is AI-generated and
Why objectivity (85): The article presents facts objectively with minimal editorializing. It includes direct quotes from the prosecution and explains the procedural reasons for changing the order of presentations. The tone remains professional and neutral throughout.
The Senate impeachment court reprimanded prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. for engaging in 'intramurals', a term suggesting internal discussions or procedural delays, with the defense lawyer during the examination of former Education Undersecretary Michael Poa. The incident occurred as Tolosa began his questioning of Poa, starting with whether he is a competent lawyer. This exchange was seen as wasting time and drew criticism from the court. The hearing is part of the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a procedural issue within a legal proceeding involving a high-profile political figure. It does not exhibit clear bias in framing, word choice, or emphasis. The content remains focused on the actions taken by the impeachment court and does not favor either side in the broader
Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the incident where prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. was reprimanded by the Senate impeachment court for engaging in 'intramurals.' It provides a clear account of the situation without adding unnecessary details or speculation.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the facts without apparent bias. However, it briefly mentions the nature of the reprimand, which could be seen as slightly favoring the court's perspective.
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte continued on September 2, 2026, with her defense counsel and former Department of Education (DepEd) chief of staff, Michael Poa, scheduled to testify as a witness. The House prosecution panel was in the process of presenting evidence against Duterte. This development follows ongoing legal proceedings related to her potential removal from office.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a neutral account of the impeachment trial proceedings without apparent bias toward either the prosecution or defense. It reports on the scheduled testimony of a defense witness without editorializing or emphasizing one side over the other.
Why factuality (85): The article reports that Sen. Francis Escudero banned electronic devices during testimony, based on a court ruling. It provides direct quotes and context without embellishment. Information is consistent with other articles and presents the rule as a standard procedural measure.
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting the court's decision without commentary or bias. It focuses on the procedural aspect without suggesting any underlying motivations or implications.
The prosecution is expected to conclude its arguments related to the misuse of confidential funds by Vice President Sara Duterte within the next week. The charges stem from alleged improper use of funds allocated to her office between 2022 and 2023. This development comes after a recent trial session where prosecutors outlined their case under Article I of the Articles of Impeachment. The timeline suggests that the prosecution is nearing the end of its phase in the legal proceedings against Duterte.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the legal process and does not exhibit clear bias toward either side. It reports on the timeline of the prosecution's case without using loaded language or emphasizing one perspective over another.
Why factuality (85): The article states that the prosecution may conclude its case within a week regarding the misuse of confidential funds by Vice President Sara Duterte. This information is consistent with the broader narrative of ongoing legal proceedings and timelines reported by other sources.
Why objectivity (90): The article provides factual updates on the legal process without expressing opinion or bias. It maintains a neutral tone throughout.
In the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution removed two of its four witnesses from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). This decision came after a second AFP officer completed his testimony on the same day. The witnesses were Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao and Lt. Col. Carlos Sangdaan Jr., who were part of the evidence presented against Duterte. The move suggests potential challenges or changes in the prosecution's strategy during the ongoing trial.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the procedural change in the prosecution's witness lineup during an impeachment trial, which is a politically charged event. However, the tone remains neutral, focusing on the factual update rather than taking a clear ideological stance. There is no evident slant in the choice
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that the prosecution withdrew two of four AFP witnesses in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. It mentions specific names (Maj. Gen. Adonis Bajao and Lt. Col. Carlos Sangdaan Jr.) and provides context about the trial proceedings. However, it does not provi
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information in a neutral tone, reporting facts without apparent bias or emotional language. It avoids taking sides in the impeachment trial and simply relays the procedural development.
The Senate impeachment court in the Philippines is considering extending its proceedings for Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial into a full day session, potentially canceling plenary sessions from October until the second regular session resumes on November 9. Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero has proposed this change, which is still subject to final approval, as the chamber works through the ongoing legal process.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the procedural changes being considered by the Senate impeachment court regarding Vice President Sara Duterte's trial. It does not take a clear ideological stance or frame the issue in a particularly left or right-leaning manner. The tone remains formal
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the Senate impeachment court's consideration of whole-day proceedings and the timeline for the trial. It provides specific details about the proposed schedule and mentions Presiding Officer Sen. Francis Escudero. These details align with standard reporting practices
Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral in tone, simply relaying information about the proposed schedule changes without expressing opinion or bias.
During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution's private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. testified against Michael Poa, who is part of the defense team. Tolosa criticized Poa for responding to the Commission on Audit's findings regarding the Department of Education's use of confidential funds, despite Poa claiming to know nothing about the matter. Tolosa referred to Poa as 'abogadong walang alam' (lawyer who knew nothing), which led to objections from defense counsel Sheila Sison, who argued the term was insulting and violated Poa's rights. Tolosa clarified that the comment was meant to highlight Poa's lack of knowledge in Congress, but Sison suggested more respectful phrasing could have been used. The court, presided over by Senator-judge Francis Escudero, ruled to remove the offensive statement from the record.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the prosecution's remarks as potentially disrespectful and highlights the defense's objection to the language used. While the legal proceedings are central, the emphasis on the impropriety of the prosecution's wording suggests a left-leaning perspective, particularly in supporting
Why factuality (85): The article accurately summarizes the defense's reaction to the prosecution's offer of testimony for Michael Poa. It provides context about Poa's background and role in the trial.
Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral in tone, presenting the defense's response without editorializing. It focuses on delivering factual information about the trial proceedings.
In the ongoing impeachment trial of President Sara Duterte, defense counsel Sheila Sison criticized the prosecution's 13-point offer regarding lawyer Michael Poa's testimony. The offer was presented by prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. during proceedings before the impeachment court. Sison described the offer as 'rhetoric aimed at providing drama,' suggesting it lacks substantive value. Poa previously held the position of chief of staff at the Department of Education from 2022 to 2024.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the prosecution's offer as 'rhetoric aimed at providing drama,' which implies a dismissive attitude toward the legal arguments being made by the opposing side. This suggests a right-leaning framing that downplays the seriousness of the prosecution's case.
Why factuality (85): The article provides accurate information about Michael Poa's background and his role in the impeachment trial. It includes details about his professional history and positions held.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, presenting factual information about Poa's background and role in the trial without taking a stance.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 8012 days ago
The impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte commenced on July 6, marking her second impeachment by the House of Representatives. The charges include misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, bribery of education officials, and threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family. Only 21 of the 24 senator-judges are present, with several absent due to legal issues. Recent developments include the prosecution accelerating the presentation of the unexplained wealth case, the defense claiming some signatories on fund receipts were aliases, and the prosecution opposing the late submission of this argument. A Philippine Statistics Authority official noted that some names on the receipts belonged to children or deceased individuals.
Bias read (Center): The article provides factual updates on the impeachment proceedings without overtly favoring either side. It reports on both the prosecution's arguments and the defense's responses, including their respective legal objections. There is no evident editorializing or biased language that would indicate
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte including the four articles of impeachment and the absence of three senators. However, it contains some speculative elements like 'first Philippine public official to be impeached twice' which may not be explicitly stated in p
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a generally neutral tone while providing updates and analyses. It includes quotes from both prosecution and defense without overt bias. However, the inclusion of phrases like 'defining political issue' and 'consequential political events' introduces slight subjectivity.
Lead House prosecutor Gerville Luistro indicated that the prosecution may no longer present former Department of Education (DepEd) special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda as a witness before the Senate impeachment court due to his poor health. This decision would require the defense team's agreement to stipulations, which allow both sides to accept certain facts without further proof. Luistro emphasized the intent to avoid worsening Fajarda's condition while ensuring the prosecution's case remains unaffected. Court presiding officer Senator-judge Francis Escudero stated the court is prepared to excuse Fajarda from testifying if he is unfit due to health issues, with Senate doctors set to assess his fitness. The testimony was originally scheduled for August 25 but was postponed to September 7 following a medical report indicating Fajarda had suffered a stroke.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information regarding the potential withdrawal of a witness from an impeachment trial due to health concerns. It reports on procedural developments and legal considerations without overtly favoring either side of the political dispute. The framing remains neutral, with a
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that lead House prosecutor Gerville Luistro suggested not presenting Edward Fajarda's testimony due to his poor health, contingent on the defense agreeing to stipulations. It provides context about what stipulations mean and quotes Luistro directly. No primary source i
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, focusing on the legal process and quoting officials without expressing personal opinion. However, it slightly emphasizes the prosecution's position by mentioning their intent to avoid aggravating Fajarda's condition.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 8016 days ago
The Senate impeachment court in the Philippines is considering adjustments to the trial schedule of Vice President Sara Duterte to accommodate budget deliberations for the 2027 national budget. The proposed schedule includes whole-day trials from October 1–2, 5–9, and 12–15, followed by a suspension from October 16 to November 8 for Senate finance committee budget hearings. The trial would resume on November 9 and 16, coinciding with plenary sessions to approve the budget. Senate President Win Gatchalian and Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero emphasized balancing the impeachment process with legislative priorities. Escudero stated the schedule is still being refined and will be finalized by next week.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the scheduling decision as a practical administrative adjustment rather than taking a partisan stance. It reports on the procedural considerations of balancing impeachment proceedings with legislative duties, without overtly favoring either the impeachment effort or the budget审议
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on the scheduling adjustments made by the Senate impeachment court to accommodate budget deliberations. It provides a clear overview of the proposed timeline without adding unnecessary details or speculation.
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a generally neutral tone, though it emphasizes the importance of balancing the impeachment trial with budget deliberations, which could be interpreted as slightly favoring the legislative process.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 8016 days ago
Former Department of Education chief of staff Michael Poa testified during Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial that he was unaware of the transfer of confidential funds to her security officer, Colonel Dennis Nolasco. The prosecution used his testimony to highlight his lack of knowledge regarding the secret expenditures he had previously defended. Poa stated that he only learned about the involvement of a security officer during a House hearing in 2024. The case centers around alleged violations of a joint circular requiring only the Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) to handle confidential funds. The Commission on Audit (COA) had previously flagged DepEd's P75 million in confidential spending due to insufficient documentation, prompting a reply letter from the department. Military officials later denied receiving funds from DepEd for counterinsurgency activities, and Poa confirmed no transfers occurred between the agencies.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal proceedings involving former officials and the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. It reports on the testimony of Michael Poa without overtly favoring either side, focusing on the procedural aspects of the impeachment trial and the CO
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Michael Poa confirmed he was unaware of the transfer of confidential funds to Colonel Dennis Nolasco. This aligns with the primary source documents which mention Poa admitting he didn't know about the security officer handling the funds until the 2024 House hearin
Why objectivity (80): The article remains largely neutral in tone, presenting facts without overt bias. However, it includes phrases like 'this is AI-generated' and 'Report any errors,' which slightly undermine neutrality by implying potential inaccuracies.
During Day 20 of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, Presiding Officer Francis Escudero clarified that a widely circulated image showing OVP Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio wearing an earpiece was fabricated. The image had gone viral and was used to suggest potential misconduct during the trial. Escudero stated that verification confirmed the image was AI-generated and not authentic. This clarification aimed to dispel misinformation circulating online regarding the proceedings.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual correction regarding a viral image related to a high-profile political trial. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. The content remains neutral in tone, focusing on the clarification provided by Presiding Officer Escud
Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the reluctance of Duterte's subordinates to use the term 'disburse' when referring to Colonel Raymund Lachica. This aligns with the primary source documents, which note the avoidance of the term. However, the article includes an explanatory section by Dwight de Leon,
Why objectivity (80): The article includes an explanatory section by Dwight de Leon, which introduces some subjectivity. While the main content remains neutral, the inclusion of analysis slightly affects the overall objectivity.
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.
PH
![[Vantage Point] Drowning in concrete: Why our flood control fails](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2026%2F09%2FLeyte-Upper-Mahiao-2-19September2026.jpg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
