Duterte trial: Prosecution withdraws ex-DepEd SDO Fajarda as witnessDuring the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution withdrew former Department of Education special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda as a witness due to his recovery from a stroke. Fajarda was set to testify regarding allegations of misuse of confidential funds under Duterte's tenure as education secretary. His testimony was postponed after he suffered a stroke, and despite being designated a reserved witness, his legal team requested additional time for recovery. The prosecution ultimately decided not to proceed with his testimony and instead pursued stipulations. The defense had previously agreed that Duterte's security officer received P112.5 million in confidential funds from Fajarda at her direction.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments in the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the withdrawal of a witness due to health reasons and mentions both the prosecution's decision and the defense's prior stipulation. There is no clear ideological slant in the choice
Why factuality (90): The article accurately details the withdrawal of Edward Fajarda as a witness due to health reasons, including his stroke and subsequent recovery period. It cites the legal counsel's statement and the prosecution's decision to pursue stipulations instead of direct testimony.
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting facts without bias. It reports both sides of the situation, Fajarda's health condition and the prosecution's response, with equal emphasis.
Impeachment court can summon witnesses – EscuderoThe Senate impeachment court overseeing Vice President Sara Duterte's trial may summon additional witnesses if needed, according to presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero. Escudero clarified that while the prosecution initially wanted to call Duterte's former security personnel, Col. Dennis Nolasco and Col. Raymund Lachica, the prosecution later stated they no longer needed to do so. Escudero emphasized that the court retains the authority to call witnesses even after both parties have presented their evidence, though such witnesses would only respond to questions from the senator-judges rather than the prosecution or defense.
Bias read (Center): The article presents information about the procedural rules of the impeachment court without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the potential for the court to summon witnesses independently of the prosecution and defense, without taking a clear stance on the merits of the case or the guilt/
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Senator-judge Francis Escudero stated the impeachment court may summon witnesses if needed. It provides context about the previous attempt to call former security personnel as witnesses and the current status of the case. The information aligns with the general un
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, focusing on reporting the statements of officials without expressing personal opinion. However, some phrases like 'nothing prevents the court from calling a witness' carry a slightly authoritative tone.
3 witnesses: No DepEd secret funds used for YLS – prosecutionRep. Zia Alonto Adiong, speaking on behalf of the House prosecution, stated during a press conference that no confidential funds from the Department of Education (DepEd) were released to military units for the Youth Leadership Summit (YLS) activities in 2023. While the summit activities were mentioned in DepEd’s liquidation report, Adiong clarified that there was no evidence of secret funds being used for these purposes. The statement comes amid ongoing scrutiny of financial disclosures related to educational programs and their potential misuse.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual statement from a representative of the House prosecution denying allegations of misuse of confidential funds. There is no overt ideological framing or emphasis on specific political agendas. The tone remains neutral, focusing on the clarification of financial practices
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (85): While the article remains largely factual, it leans slightly toward the prosecution's narrative by emphasizing the lack of fund usage without providing counterpoints or alternative perspectives, which may affect perceived neutrality.
Kapunan: Prosecution panel to call VP Sara Duterte to witness standLegal counsel Lorna Kapunan announced that the prosecution panel will call Vice President Sara Duterte to testify in the impeachment proceedings against her. This decision comes as the prosecution chooses not to present 15 of the 27 planned witnesses for Article I, which concerns alleged misuse of confidential funds. Kapunan emphasized that Duterte's testimony would be crucial for addressing all four articles of impeachment, including allegations of betrayal of public trust, unexplained wealth, and bribery. The prosecution has already concluded presenting evidence for Article IV, which accuses Duterte of threatening President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal strategy of the prosecution without overtly endorsing or criticizing the actions of Vice President Duterte. It reports on procedural decisions made by the legal team without taking a clear ideological stance, maintaining neutrality in its framing.
RapplerIndependentProgressive4 hr. agoThe prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has announced its intention to call her as a witness to address allegations of misuse of confidential funds. Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan stated that presenting Duterte directly would be more effective than calling 15 other witnesses, emphasizing that the evidence points to her as the accountable party. The defense argues that this violates the constitutional right against self-incrimination, asserting that Duterte is already represented by her legal team. Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero indicated the court will await a formal motion before deciding, though he suggested oral arguments could resolve the issue. The trial has been postponed until September 14, when the prosecution will begin presenting the case regarding Duterte's alleged unexplained wealth.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the prosecution's decision to call Duterte as a strategic move based on evidence pointing to her accountability, using strong language like 'accountable person' and highlighting the direct confrontation with the accused. While the defense raises constitutional concerns, the focus,
PH
