Diokno: If trolls insist I got Duterte’s CF, then OVP used it wronglyAkbayan Representative Chel Diokno responded to allegations by online trolls claiming he received confidential funds from Vice President Sara Duterte's office. He stated that if these claims were true, it would suggest that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) misused its allocated resources. Diokno, who served as a public prosecutor during Duterte's impeachment trial, made this statement on Tuesday.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Diokno's response to allegations without taking a stance or using biased language. It reports his claim that misuse of funds might have occurred but does not favor either side of the issue.
Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the prosecution's challenge regarding the physical impossibility of distributing funds nationwide on the same day. It references the acknowledgment receipts and the use of the Superman analogy, which is consistent with the primary source.
Why objectivity (85): The article uses a metaphor (Superman) to highlight the absurdity of the situation, which introduces a slight subjective element but still maintains overall neutrality in presenting the facts.
RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 658/17/2026The article is an editorial published by Rappler criticizing the lack of public oversight over government spending, particularly concerning the use of confidential funds by Vice President Sara Duterte during the 2026 holiday season. It highlights the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in their daily lives, such as rising costs and poor infrastructure, which make it difficult for them to monitor government budgets. The piece calls for continued public vigilance despite these difficulties, arguing that people cannot afford to lose interest in how their taxes are spent. It also criticizes the mindset of government officials and private sector contractors who prioritize self-interest over transparency.
Bias read (Progressive): The editorial frames the issue of government accountability as a moral imperative, emphasizing the need for public scrutiny of officials' actions. It uses emotionally charged language ('we’re too busy trying to survive', 'gustong-gusto ng mga kawatan') and implies that those in power act in self-dec
Why factuality (85): The article discusses public concern over government spending and upcoming budget hearings, aligning with the general theme of civic engagement. It does not directly reference the primary source document but presents a common narrative found in similar media reports. The content is plausible and ref
Why objectivity (65): The tone is emotionally charged, using phrases like 'Huwag! Please, huwag tayong mawala ng pakialam!' which convey strong sentiment. While the article provides context about budget hearings, it frames the issue through an advocacy lens rather than presenting a neutral analysis.
Witness: Duterte had no basis to use secret funds as VP or DepEd chiefA state auditor testified that Vice President Sara Duterte did not have the authority to use confidential funds for personal activities or security while serving as head of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) or the Department of Education (DepEd). The auditor stated that neither the OVP nor DepEd had the mandate to carry out 'confidential operations' during her tenure in those roles. The testimony suggests potential misuse of funds and raises questions about the proper handling of sensitive financial resources within government agencies.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a violation of protocol and accountability, which aligns with left-leaning critiques of executive power and transparency. While the subject involves a high-profile political figure, the emphasis on institutional oversight and legal boundaries suggests a leftward tilt,
Why factuality (65): The article reports a witness testimony from a state auditor regarding Vice President Sara Duterte's use of confidential funds. Since there is no primary source document available, factuality is judged based on consistency with the cross-source consensus. The claim that Duterte had no basis to use s
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the witness testimony neutrally, focusing on the assertion without expressing personal opinion or bias. It frames the issue as a legal matter rather than taking sides, maintaining a relatively objective tone.
![[EDITORIAL] ’Wag na ’wag nating sukuan ang pagbabantay sa pera ng bayan](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2026%2F03%2FSara-Duterte-chel-Diokno-13march2026_6.png&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
PH
