Senior NBI agent first to testify against Sara Duterte
A senior National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, John Mark Calilung, testified during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The testimony focused on Duterte's alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife Liza, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez, which were reportedly made during an online media briefing on November 23, 2026. Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan presented Calilung as part of an investigation into these claims, noting that the statements were publicly livestreamed and captured on video. Calilung, who worked in the NBI Cybercrime Division, stated that he personally conducted and participated in the cybercrime and open-source investigation related to the subject video and digital recordings. Defense counsel Carlo Joaquin Narvasa challenged the nature of Duterte's remarks, questioning whether they constituted a speech or an offer of testimony. The prosecution emphasized that the allegations were part of the fourth article of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives.
Go to the primary sources (5)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
On the second day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, the House prosecution team successfully countered objections from the defense panel regarding the testimony of NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung. Defense lawyer Carlo Joaquin Narvasa argued that Calilung was not listed in the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaint or the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House. However, private prosecutor Amando Ligutan explained that the Saballa complaint had concluded and that the current proceedings were based solely on the House's Articles of Impeachment. Presiding officer Senator-judge Francis Escudero cited a Supreme Court ruling allowing prosecutors to introduce new evidence or witnesses beyond those initially listed, thereby dismissing the defense's objection.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal arguments between the prosecution and defense teams, focusing on procedural aspects of the impeachment trial rather than taking a clear ideological stance. While the subject is politically charged due to the involvement of a high-ranking official,
Why factuality (96): The article accurately reports the denial of the defense's motion regarding the inclusion of NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung. It reflects the primary sources that discuss the defense's objection and the court's ruling.
Why objectivity (96): The article maintains neutrality by presenting both the defense's objection and the prosecution's response without favoring either side.
GMA News OnlineIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9528 days ago
The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte has requested her acquittal in connection with an ongoing impeachment process. The impeachment proceedings are reportedly being used as a strategy to remove her from office. This development highlights the political tensions surrounding her position and the legal challenges she faces.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation neutrally by stating the defense team's request for acquittal and noting the alleged intent behind the impeachment. There is no evident bias in the language or framing, and the report does not favor one side over the other.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately captures the essence of Day 6 of the trial, including the oral arguments about the subpoena request and the absence of witnesses. It aligns closely with the primary source documents.
Why objectivity (95): The article remains neutral and factual, providing a balanced overview of both the prosecution and defense positions without showing preference.
Senator Loren Legarda, a veteran participant in multiple impeachment trials, emphasized that the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is more than just a legal procedure, it tests judgment, conscience, and institutional duty. She stressed that the process must remain focused on evidence and constitutional principles rather than political divisions or personal attacks. Legarda highlighted the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework established by the framers of the 1987 Constitution, warning that deviations could undermine the legitimacy of the trial. She noted that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing challenges related to the Senate’s procedures in the trial. The impeachment court will continue its sessions through July 22 before resuming on July 28.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Senator Legarda's statements neutrally, focusing on her emphasis on constitutional adherence and impartiality in the impeachment trial. There is no overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. The framing remains balanced, reflecting Legarda's concerns as
Why factuality (95): The article presents a clear, factual summary of Sen. Legarda's comments on the impeachment trial, referencing her past involvement in similar trials and her concerns about the process. It aligns closely with the primary source document and maintains neutrality in its reporting.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral and objective, focusing on Legarda's professional perspective without introducing bias or emotional language. It presents her views as a matter of policy rather than opinion.
Rep. Terry Ridon, a House of Representatives prosecutor and member of the Bicol Saro party-list, has called on Vice President Sara Duterte to personally appear before the impeachment tribunal rather than relying on legal representatives. Ridon criticized Duterte's recent comments suggesting she welcomes a 'bloodbath' during her trial, arguing that she cannot expect to be involved in the process from the sidelines or through proxies. This comes after Duterte previously expressed eagerness for a 'bloodbath' during her first impeachment attempt in early 2025, though the trial was ultimately halted by the Supreme Court due to constitutional concerns raised by Duterte herself. Some supporters of Duterte's impeachment have pointed out contradictions in her stance, questioning whether her desire for a 'bloodbath' reflects a genuine willingness to confront the proceedings or an attempt to avoid accountability.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both Ridon's call for Duterte to face the trial directly and Duterte's own statements about welcoming a 'bloodbath.' It does not favor one side over the other, merely relaying their positions and the reactions of others. The framing remains balanced, avoiding overtly biased or倾向
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on Vice President Duterte's statement, aligning with the primary source document. It provides a direct quote and contextualizes her remarks without adding unverified information.
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting Duterte's statement as a direct quote without editorializing or emotional language.
On the first day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Public Prosecution Panel member and Akbayan party-list Representative Chel Diokno expressed confusion over the defense's request regarding the readiness to present witnesses without a subpoena. During a press briefing, Diokno noted that the defense lawyer, Sheila Sison, questioned whether the prosecution was prepared to present witnesses, despite the lack of subpoenas for those testifying the next day. Diokno stated that the answer was clear since subpoenas had not yet been issued. He also highlighted that Sison repeatedly violated courtroom decorum by addressing questions to him rather than the court. Sison argued her question was directed to the presiding officer, while Diokno insisted it was meant for the court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the procedural debate between the prosecution and defense during the impeachment trial. It reports on Diokno's clarification of the situation and Sison's counterargument without taking sides. The framing remains neutral, focusing on legal procedures and the
Why factuality (95): The article accurately describes Gatchalian's rationale for designating Escudero as the presiding officer. It aligns with the primary source documents, which mention the change in leadership and Gatchalian's focus on legislative work.
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information objectively, focusing on Gatchalian's explanation and assurances without introducing personal biases or emotional language.
The prosecution team in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial expressed satisfaction with their progress on the second day of proceedings. They emphasized that evidence related to allegations of Duterte making grave threats against government officials was accepted by the Senate Impeachment Court. Public prosecutors highlighted the effectiveness of private counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan, who questioned NBI investigators about Duterte's alleged threats during an online press briefing in November 2024. The prosecution noted that the court treated both sides fairly, ensuring transparency and impartiality. The trial continued with the presentation of evidence and witnesses, maintaining the momentum established on the first day.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the prosecution's perspective of the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from prosecution representatives and acknowledges the court's fairness, presenting the situation objectively without biased language or selective sourcing.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately describes the presentation of the video clip, the length of the video, and the defense's objection. It matches the primary source document regarding the video's content and the court's decision to show only a portion of it. The details are clear and supported by the trial reco
Why objectivity (85): The article remains objective, reporting the events without emotional language or editorializing. It presents the actions of both the prosecution and the defense without favoring either side.
Two officials from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Lawyer Jeremy Lotoc and John Mark Calilung, have been named as the first witnesses to testify during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The Senate impeachment court began issuing subpoenas on Monday, with presiding officer Senator-judge Francis Escudero overseeing the process. The prosecution panel, representing the House of Representatives, requested the subpoenas, which were supported by legal motions citing the need for the testimonies to address allegations under Article IV of the impeachment articles. Duterte's legal team argued they were not provided copies of the subpoena requests, making it difficult to object. The court acknowledged the lack of prior objection but invited the defense to raise any concerns now.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual procedural developments in the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the legal process, including the prosecution's request for subpoenas and the defense's objection to the lack of prior notice. There is no clear ideological slant in the报道
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): The article accurately summarizes the prosecution's claim about the defense's attempts to shift focus. It remains mostly objective but slightly emphasizes the prosecution's viewpoint.
A senior National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, John Mark Calilung, testified during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. The testimony focused on Duterte's alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife Liza, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez, which were reportedly made during an online media briefing on November 23, 2026. Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan presented Calilung as part of an investigation into these claims, noting that the statements were publicly livestreamed and captured on video. Calilung, who worked in the NBI Cybercrime Division, stated that he personally conducted and participated in the cybercrime and open-source investigation related to the subject video and digital recordings. Defense counsel Carlo Joaquin Narvasa challenged the nature of Duterte's remarks, questioning whether they constituted a speech or an offer of testimony. The prosecution emphasized that the allegations were part of the fourth article of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives.
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, focusing on allegations of threatening political figures. While the subject matter is politically charged, the framing leans left by highlighting the legal actions taken against Duterte and emphasizing the gravity,
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the OVP's request to bring its own equipment to the trial holding area. It aligns with the primary sources that mention the administrative arrangements for the defense team.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, simply reporting the logistical requests made by the OVP without taking sides or introducing biased language.
The prosecution team in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial anticipates a more contentious week as they prepare to hear testimony from Duterte's chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez. Defense lawyers have previously objected to the testimony of a National Bureau of Investigation agent who authenticated a video showing Duterte threatening President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family. Prosecutors plan to call Lopez, along with other witnesses, to testify about the circumstances surrounding Duterte's expletive-laden online briefing in November 2024, which has become key evidence in the case. Duterte faces multiple charges, including subverting the constitutional order, undermining democratic norms, misusing confidential funds, amassing unexplained wealth, and bribing officials. To secure a conviction, prosecutors require the votes of at least two-thirds of the Senate.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the ongoing impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte, presenting the perspectives of both the prosecution and the defense. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The focus is on the procedural steps,
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reflects President Marcos Jr.'s stance on the impeachment trial, quoting his spokesperson. It aligns with the primary source document and provides context about the political environment around the trial.
Why objectivity (85): While factual, the article carries a slight political undertone by emphasizing the support from the presidency, which could influence readers' perceptions of the trial's legitimacy.
During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a two-minute excerpt from a November 2025 press conference was shown, in which Duterte allegedly threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez with death if anything happened to her. The clip was presented by prosecutors under the direction of Presiding Judge Sen. Francis Escudero, who permitted the limited playback despite objections from Duterte's legal team. Defense attorney Carlo Joaquin Narvasa argued that the full two-hour video was needed to provide proper context for Duterte's comments, but the court ruled that only the relevant portion would be shown at this stage. The defense was informed they could later present the rest of the video during their case.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the facts of the impeachment trial neutrally, quoting both the prosecution and defense arguments regarding the video's relevance and context. It does not favor either side, merely relaying the legal proceedings and the reasoning behind the court's decision to limit the video's播放
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the video clip presented, the length of the video, and the defense's objection. It aligns with the primary source document regarding the content of the video and the court's ruling. The details are precise and reflect the actual trial proceedings.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, providing factual descriptions of the trial without introducing personal opinions or emotional language. It fairly represents the positions of both the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial has stated it will retain the right to call Duterte as a witness in the case involving charges of grave threats. This comes after Duterte did not appear before the court on the second day of her trial. Prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan emphasized that Duterte, who is considered a hostile witness, could be called to testify if necessary. The presiding officer of the impeachment trial, Senator-Judge Francis Escudero, indicated that the court would consider such a request once formally submitted. Duterte had attended the Senate but only met with her legal team and did not participate in the trial proceedings.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the legal process of an impeachment trial involving a high-ranking official, presenting the positions of both the prosecution and the presiding judge without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both parties and provides factual information about the im
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on Rep. Terry Ridon's comments urging Duterte to face the trial, aligning with the primary source document. It provides context about the political rhetoric surrounding the trial.
Why objectivity (85): The tone is somewhat provocative, reflecting the intensity of the trial and the political stakes, which could influence reader interpretation.
Senator-judges involved in the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte are restricted by the sub judice rule, which prohibits them from commenting on the merits of the case to maintain impartiality and public trust. This restriction was highlighted by Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol during a press briefing. The discussion arose after Senator Robin Padilla, known for his alignment with the Duterte family, posted on Facebook about video evidence in the impeachment proceedings, emphasizing the need for 'raw' recordings rather than copies from online sources. Padilla defended his comments by referencing his experience in mass media and urged others to provide 'facts' instead of misleading information. While Tongol did not directly accuse Padilla of violating the rule, he emphasized that any determination of a breach would be made by the impeachment court itself, likely through reminders rather than formal sanctions.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the restrictions placed on senator-judges under the sub judice rule and Senator Robin Padilla's public comments regarding the impeachment proceedings. It includes quotes from Regie Tongol, the spokesperson for the Senate impeachment court, explaining the rules and the need
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the Palace's rejection of Duterte's call for officials to stop 'politicking,' aligning with the primary source's context of the impeachment trial and political dynamics.
Why objectivity (75): The article presents the Palace's response without overt bias, though it frames the situation in terms of political maneuvering, which could be seen as slightly biased.
During the first day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, house prosecutors have requested subpoenas for the financial records of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio. The request includes subpoenas duces tecum directed at several bank branches, requiring their managers to testify and provide certified true copies of all relevant financial records related to accounts held by Duterte and her husband between 2007 and 2025. Additionally, the prosecution sought similar subpoenas against the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), requesting reports of covert and suspicious transactions involving Duterte and her husband from 2006 to 2025. The Senate impeachment court granted both parties five days to respond and scheduled an oral argument.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the procedural request made by the prosecution in an impartial manner, detailing the specifics of the subpoenas without overtly criticizing or praising either side. It provides factual information about the legal process and does not exhibit clear ideological leaning toward the检
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on the opening statement by Duterte's lead counsel, referencing the start of the trial and the prosecution's arguments. It aligns with the primary source document regarding the procedural aspects of the trial.
Why objectivity (70): The tone is somewhat supportive of the prosecution's call for accountability, though it remains neutral. The focus on the emotional appeal of the prosecutor may slightly tilt the narrative towards the prosecution's perspective.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 7028 days ago
Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team challenged the allegations against her during the opening of her impeachment trial. They argued that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s administration approved the release of confidential funds requested by Duterte's office. The defense highlighted that the Department of Budget and Management recommended the approval, which was subsequently endorsed by the Office of the President. The funds, totaling P612.5 million, were reportedly released to the Office of the Vice President in December 2022 despite the end of the fiscal year. The impeachment case centers around the alleged misuse of these funds, with the House of Representatives accusing Duterte of constitutional violations, graft, and betrayal of public trust.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte and her defense's counterarguments without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from the defense counsel and references the official approval process by the presidential administration, providing a sembl
Why factuality (85): The article accurately captures the defense's opening statement, including the use of the 'never forget' slogan and the comparison of voter numbers. This aligns with the primary source's description of the trial's beginning.
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the defense's arguments with a certain level of enthusiasm, which could be seen as leaning towards the defense's perspective, though it remains largely factual.
In the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, prosecution panel spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers argued that it is implausible for someone intending to hire an assassin to formalize such a contract in writing. During a press briefing, Barbers questioned the logic of signing a contract that could potentially be used against the individual, suggesting that such contracts are unlikely to exist. He further humorously raised the idea of suing for breach of contract if the assassination plan failed. House Representative Bel Zamora supported this view, stating that any contract involving illegal activities would automatically be void under the law. Duterte's supporters have challenged the allegations, claiming there is no evidence that she hired an assassin to target the Marcos family and other officials. The trial continued with the defense questioning NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung about his knowledge of the alleged hitman.
Bias read (Center): The article presents arguments from both the prosecution and Duterte's supporters, offering perspectives from multiple sides without overtly favoring one over the other. It includes quotes from opposing viewpoints and does not exhibit biased language or selective sourcing.
Why factuality (80): The article discusses the prosecution's argument about the implausibility of a written contract for assassination. It aligns with the general context of the trial but does not directly reference specific details from the primary source documents.
Why objectivity (85): The article remains neutral in tone, presenting the argument without taking sides or using emotionally charged language.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 7024 days ago
The article discusses a claim that Vice President Sara Duterte has been 'cleared' of wrongdoing due to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) receiving an unmodified audit opinion from the Commission on Audit (COA). This claim is labeled as false. The article explains that an unmodified opinion merely indicates that the financial statements were fairly presented according to accounting standards, not that the agency fully complied with laws or used funds efficiently. It clarifies that additional audits, such as compliance and performance audits, are required to assess legal adherence and operational efficiency. The article notes that COA has previously issued disallowances against the OVP for improper use of confidential funds, including P73 million in 2022 and P375 million in 2023. These findings are part of an ongoing impeachment trial against Duterte, where the issue of confidential fund usage is being scrutinized.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the claim made by the YouTube video and the clarification provided by the Commission on Audit. It avoids taking a partisan stance by explaining the technical nature of the audit opinion and its limitations. While the subject involves high-level politics, the framing remains
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports the prosecution's argument that contracts for assassins are unlikely, aligning with the primary source's discussion of the trial's evidentiary challenges. It provides context on the legal reasoning.
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the prosecution's argument without overt bias, though it includes rhetorical questions that might suggest a slight leaning towards the prosecution's viewpoint.
Philippine Palace press officer Claire Castro raised concerns about Senator Pia Cayetano's apparent difficulty breathing during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. During a press briefing, Castro asked Cayetano how she was feeling, noting that she seemed out of breath when speaking, possibly due to excitement, anxiety, or another reason. The remarks came after Cayetano commented on Malacañang's support for the Senate majority bloc. This occurred amid ongoing political tensions surrounding the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Duterte.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Castro's comments neutrally, focusing on her expression of concern for Cayetano's health without overtly favoring either side of the political spectrum. There is no clear ideological framing or biased language, and the content remains focused on the observed behavior rather than
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports on Claire Castro's comments regarding Duterte needing to personally address the charges. It references the primary source document about Duterte's statement and the Palace's stance. However, it omits specific details about the trial proceedings and focuses more on the
Why objectivity (65): The article has a somewhat subjective tone, particularly in the description of Duterte's 'bloodbath' remark and the reference to the poem 'Invictus.' This suggests a potential bias toward the Palace's interpretation of the situation.
The prosecution team in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has decided to withdraw several witnesses related to Article IV, which alleges grave threats. These include the former sheriff who was allegedly assaulted by Duterte, reporters who covered her press briefings, and other individuals such as PNP Firearms and Explosives representatives and a psychiatrist. Lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro stated that the remaining witness for this article will be NBI Director Melvin Matibag, who will testify next week. This marks the second instance of witness withdrawals, following the decision to exclude OVP Chief-of-Staff Zuleika Lopez and House Legislative Security Bureau officer Belinda Bello, whose testimonies were deemed redundant. The prosecution had initially planned to present Lopez as a hostile witness due to her involvement in the discussions surrounding the allegations.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the prosecution's decisions regarding witness withdrawals without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on procedural changes in the impeachment trial without taking a clear stance on the merits of the charges or the credibility of the accused
Why factuality (75): The article addresses the distinction between the first impeachment attempt and the current process, aligning with the primary sources. It provides context about the legal arguments but lacks specific details about the subpoena ruling itself.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting the legal distinctions without bias.
During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, National Bureau of Immigration (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc testified that typographical errors in the NBI's documents do not affect the bureau's findings that Duterte committed the crimes of grave threats and inciting to sedition. These errors were raised by Duterte's defense attorney, Mark Vinluan, who questioned whether they violated due process. Lotoc clarified that such minor mistakes, such as typos in spelling, dates, and case numbers, do not impact the validity of the NBI's conclusions regarding Duterte's alleged criminal actions. The NBI emphasized that the content of the video in question and Duterte's statements remain unchanged despite the typographical issues.
Bias read (Center): The article presents testimony from both the prosecution and defense, with no overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports directly on the legal arguments and evidence being considered in the impeachment trial, maintaining neutrality in framing the discussion.
Why factuality (75): The article discusses the NBI's findings regarding Vice President Sara Duterte's alleged crimes of grave threats and inciting to sedition. It references the cross-examination of NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who asserts that typographical errors in documents do not affect the NBI's findings. H
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the defense's argument that typographical errors might violate due process but does not provide equal weight to the prosecution's counterarguments. The tone leans toward the defense's perspective, suggesting a slight bias.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian announced that he has stepped aside as presiding officer of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, allowing Senator Francis 'Chiz' Escudero to take over the role. Gatchalian explained that this decision allows him to focus on legislative responsibilities such as the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council measures and the upcoming 2027 national budget hearings. Despite stepping back from direct oversight of the trial, Gatchalian emphasized that the impeachment process remains a priority and that he retains full supervisory authority over the Senate. He assured the public that the trial will proceed with fairness.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of Gatchalian's decision to step aside during the impeachment trial, citing his own statements and emphasizing that the trial remains a priority. There is no evident bias toward either side of the political spectrum, and the framing appears neutral.
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 60): The article raises questions about Escudero's authority but lacks specific details from the primary source. The tone is somewhat critical and less neutral compared to others.
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![[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)
