No need for Lachica testimony to prove VP misused confi funds – BarbersAce Barbers, a spokesperson for the House impeachment team, stated that the prosecution panel does not require Col. Raymund Dante Lachica's testimony to prove Vice President Sara Z. Duterte misused confidential funds. Barbers argued that existing evidence already demonstrates Duterte's role as the head of the agency and her authority to approve related actions.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a statement from a spokesperson representing the impeachment team, indicating that the prosecution has sufficient evidence without needing additional testimony. There is no overtly biased language or framing; it simply reports the position of the House impeachment team. The tone
Why factuality (70): The article states that the prosecution does not require Col. Lachica's testimony to establish VP Duterte's misuse of funds, citing existing evidence. This aligns with cross-source reporting on the impeachment proceedings and the legal arguments being made by the prosecution.
Why objectivity (65): The article reflects the position of the prosecution team without presenting opposing viewpoints, leading to a somewhat one-sided narrative. While factual, it lacks balance by not mentioning potential defense arguments or alternative interpretations.
AFP witnesses to clarify certifications on DepEd CF liquidationTwo retired military officers, including Col. Manaros Boransing II and Col. [name withheld], are expected to testify before the Senate impeachment court regarding the use of Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) certifications in Department of Education confidential fund records. The testimony aims to clarify why these certifications were utilized despite the signatories stating they were unaware of their intended purpose. House prosecution spokespersons indicated that these witnesses could provide crucial insights into the matter. The situation involves potential misuse of military credentials in educational financial documentation, raising questions about accountability and transparency.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a legal proceeding involving military personnel and governmental oversight without overtly favoring any political side. It focuses on the procedural aspects of the testimony and does not include strong ideological framing or editorial commentary. The tone is
Why factuality (65): The article reports on a statement from House prosecution spokespersons regarding military officers who may provide clarification on AFP certifications related to DepEd CF liquidation. It references specific individuals but does not provide full details of the certification process or the legal cont
Why objectivity (70): The article presents information from a spokesperson without evident bias, maintaining a neutral tone. However, it focuses on the prosecution's perspective without providing counterpoints or broader context, slightly affecting balance.
‘Tagisan ng talino’: 3 lawyers face off at Sara Duterte’s impeachment trialDuring the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, her former defense lawyer and spokesperson, Atty. Michael Poa, unexpectedly testified as a witness for the prosecution. Private prosecutor Benjamin 'Jay' Tolosa Jr. conducted the direct examination of Poa, while lawyer Sheila Sison led Duterte's defense team. The Senate impeachment court declared Poa a hostile witness after he was called to the stand by the prosecution. Tensions escalated between Tolosa and Sison as Tolosa questioned Poa about P112.5 million in confidential funds released to the Department of Education during Duterte's tenure as secretary. Tolosa cited a 2015 audit regulation requiring documentary proof of successful information gathering in exchange for rewards. Poa attempted to respond but was interrupted, leading to further conflict.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal proceedings, focusing on the procedural aspects and tensions between opposing counsel without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the courtroom dynamics and legal arguments without clear ideological slant.
Prosecution, defense teams clash over supposed insult vs PoaDuring 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
WATCH: Defense calls prosecution’s 13-point offer on Poa ‘rhetoric’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.
Sara Duterte impeachment trial: Who is Michael Poa?The article profiles Atty. Michael Poa, one of Vice President Sara Duterte's defense lawyers during her impeachment trial. It outlines his legal background, including his admission to the bar in 2019 and degrees in law and creative arts. The piece highlights his government service, particularly his roles as spokesperson and undersecretary at the Department of Education (DepEd), and his subsequent positions as a spokesperson for the Office of the Vice President. Despite his legal expertise, Poa is noted more for his government roles rather than his private practice.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about Michael Poa's professional background and government roles without overtly favoring any political stance. It provides balanced information about his career, both in legal practice and government service, without taking sides in the impeachment trial or诋
WATCH: Sara Duterte impeachment trial | Sept. 2, 2026The 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.
VP Trial Day 21: Defense lawyer Michael Poa to testify in impeachment courtOn September 2, Vice President Sara Duterte's defense counsel, Michael Poa, is set to testify in her impeachment trial. As the defense lawyer and former DepEd Chief of Staff, Poa will be called upon by the prosecution panel to appear as a witness. At this stage, he cannot yet be classified as a hostile witness, indicating that his testimony has not been deemed adversarial to the impeachment proceedings.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information regarding the upcoming testimony of Vice President Sara Duterte's defense counsel without overtly favoring either side of the impeachment proceedings. It reports on the procedural status of the witness without taking a clear ideological stance, maintaining a
Escudero bars listening devices from VP Duterte impeachment trialSen. Francis Escudero, who is presiding over the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, has banned witnesses from using communication devices such as earpieces, mobile phones, and smartwatches during their testimony. This directive follows the court's determination that a viral image appeared to show witness Lemuel Ortoni engaging in activities that could compromise the integrity of the proceedings. The measure aims to prevent potential tampering or unauthorized communication during testimonies.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a procedural directive by a senator overseeing an impeachment trial without overtly endorsing or criticizing any political faction. It focuses on maintaining the integrity of legal procedures rather than taking a partisan stance. There is no clear ideological framing or emphasis
Poa temporarily out of impeachment trial defense to take witness standAtty. Michael Poa, who previously served as counsel and spokesperson for Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team in her impeachment trial, has temporarily stepped down from his role to testify as a witness before the Senate impeachment court. This development comes amid ongoing proceedings related to Duterte's potential impeachment. Poa's testimony could provide critical insights into the case against Duterte, potentially influencing the outcome of the trial. The move highlights the evolving dynamics within the legal process surrounding high-profile political figures in the Philippines.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a procedural change in a high-profile political trial but does not exhibit clear bias in framing, language, or sourcing. It presents the fact that Poa is testifying without overtly favoring either side of the impeachment case.
Colonel Raymund Lachica: The ‘missing link,’ and the trial’s wildcardColonel Raymund Lachica, a former security officer of Vice President Sara Duterte, is at the center of an impeachment trial due to accusations of mismanaging confidential funds amounting to half a billion pesos between 2022 and 2023. Both the prosecution and defense have not formally requested his testimony, citing uncertainty about the reliability and impact of his potential statements. Lachica, a decorated military officer with extensive experience in Mindanao, including areas closely tied to the Duterte family, has not yet appeared as a witness. Senators involved in the trial have expressed interest in his testimony, calling him the 'missing link' in understanding the alleged misuse of public funds. However, the lack of formal requests suggests that his role in the proceedings remains unclear.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a politically sensitive impeachment trial involving high-profile figures, the framing remains balanced, presenting both the prosecution's and defense's perspectives without overtly favoring either side. The focus is on the legal and procedural uncertainties surrounding L'
ICYMI: Sara Duterte impeachment trial Week 8 highlightsThe 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.
PH![[Newsstand] The strongest argument for determining two-thirds impeachment vote](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=newsinfo.inquirer.net%2Ffiles%2F2024%2F04%2F679222-e1719934431377.jpeg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
![[In the Public Square] Two months in: Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial so far](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.rappler.com%2Ftachyon%2F2026%2F09%2FIn-the-Public-Square-2026-LS.jpg&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
