Zuleika Lopez among prosecution’s next witnesses in impeachment trial

RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 95yesterday

A claim circulating on social media alleging that a new impeachment complaint had been sent to the Senate against Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has been fact-checked and rated as false. The most recent impeachment complaints against Marcos were dismissed in February 2026, triggering a one-year immunity period from further impeachment proceedings. Social media posts falsely claimed that an impeachment complaint was filed and discussed during a Senate session, including fabricated images and references to First Lady Liza Marcos. However, no credible media or government sources have reported such a filing, and the Senate has not acted on any new complaints since the dismissal. The misinformation appears to have gained traction online, with users believing the claim despite lacking evidence.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced fact-check of a claim related to the Philippines' political landscape, providing both the false claim and the verified facts without taking a stance. It does not favor any side and relies on official dismissals of previous complaints and lack of new filings as the key

Why factuality (95): The article clearly states that there is no new impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and confirms that the last complaint was dismissed in February 2026. This is factually correct and directly supported by the primary source document which discusses the ongoing trial of Vice

Why objectivity (95): The article presents the information objectively, stating the claim as false and providing evidence to support this conclusion. There is no emotional language or biased framing, making it highly objective.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 959 days ago

The article discusses developments during the third day of the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte. The presiding senator, Francis Escudero, considered a motion to remove from the record a statement made by House prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan regarding whether Duterte's comments in a 'kill threat' video amounted to an impeachable offense. Escudero permitted defense attorney Carlo Narvasa to respond to Ligutan's remarks.

Bias read (Center): The article provides a neutral account of procedural developments in a high-profile legal proceeding involving a senior government official. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The focus is on the legal process rather than taking a stance on the merits

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the testimony of NBI agent John Mark Calilung, including his admission of lacking direct knowledge of the alleged hitman. This aligns with the primary source documents that describe his testimony and the cross-examination process.

Why objectivity (95): The article presents the information neutrally, quoting the defense counsel and the witness without injecting any personal opinions or biased language.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 908 days ago

The Senate impeachment court in the Philippines issued a subpoena to Zuleika Lopez, the chief of staff of Vice President Sara Duterte, requiring her to testify on July 13 and 14, 2026. The testimony relates to allegations that Duterte plotted to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Representative Martin Romualdez. The subpoena was officially served and received by the Office of the Vice President. Lopez previously claimed she faced threats to her life during her detention at the House of Representatives. The House committee cited Lopez for interfering with their proceedings during Duterte's impeachment hearings.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the legal process surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, including the issuance of a subpoena to her aide. It does not overtly favor one side over another, providing balanced reporting on the procedural aspects of the trial. While讼

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the subpoena issued to Zuleika Lopez and includes the exact wording of the subpoena. It provides context about the charges against Duterte and the role of Lopez in the trial. This aligns closely with the primary source documents.

Why objectivity (90): The article is neutral in tone, presenting the facts without bias. It reports on the legal actions taken by the impeachment court without suggesting any particular outcome or favoring either side.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 909 days ago

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that Malacañang has supported Senator Francis Escudero's appointment as the presiding officer of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. This decision comes amidst a Supreme Court petition led by Israelito Torreon and eight other lawyers aligned with Duterte, seeking to challenge the legitimacy of Escudero's role. The petition asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order or status quo ante order. Palace spokesperson Claire Castro stated that the selection of Escudero aligns with constitutional provisions, citing support from legal experts. The Senate recently amended its rules to allow any senator to serve as presiding officer, provided they receive a majority vote. Duterte's defense counsel, including lawyer Michael Poa, expressed unawareness of the petition and emphasized their focus on the trial itself.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives: the Palace's endorsement of Escudero and the legal challenge from Duterte's allies. It includes quotes from both sides and explains the procedural changes made by the Senate. There is no clear ideological slant toward either side, maintaining a balanced tone.

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports on the press briefing held by the prosecution panel after the third day of the trial. It summarizes the key points discussed and provides factual information about the testimony of the first witness.

Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, presenting the information from the press briefing without editorializing or taking sides in the trial.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 958 days ago

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that Malacañang, the executive branch, expects the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to result in a decision based solely on evidence, rather than protecting any politician. The trial, which began on July 7, 2026, is set to last 92 days, with the first three days completed. Palace spokesperson Claire Castro emphasized that the process should adhere to legal procedures and serve the interests of the Filipino people, not shield individuals. While Malacañang does not oversee the proceedings, Castro noted that the early stages appeared orderly. Meanwhile, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian confirmed the trial will continue since the Supreme Court did not block it. Lawyers supporting Duterte had requested a temporary restraining order, which was denied.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the expectations of the Palace and the Senate without overtly favoring either side. It reports on both the procedural aspects of the impeachment trial and the legal arguments from both the executive and legislative branches. There is no clear ideological slant in the framing or措

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reflects the expectations of the Palace regarding the impeachment trial being based on evidence. It mentions the duration of the trial and quotes the Palace press officer appropriately. However, it lacks specific details about the actual evidence being presented in the trial.

Why objectivity (95): The article remains highly objective, quoting the Palace press officer and expressing the expectations of the executive branch without taking sides or using emotionally charged language.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 959 days ago

On July 8, Senate impeachment court spokesperson lawyer Reginald Tongol held a press briefing following the third day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial. The briefing covered key rulings from the day’s proceedings, updates on the prosecution’s case, and procedural information about the next trial date set for July 13. Tongol addressed media inquiries about developments in the ongoing impeachment process.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual updates about the impeachment trial proceedings without overtly favoring any side. It focuses on procedural updates and legal developments rather than taking a stance on the merits of the case. The framing remains neutral, focusing on reported actions and statements from

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the Palace's backing of Sen. Escudero's election as presiding officer and the legal challenges surrounding it. It includes quotes from the Palace press officer and provides context about the constitutional provisions involved.

Why objectivity (95): The article is highly objective, presenting the situation from the Palace's perspective without bias. It avoids taking sides and focuses on the legal arguments and positions of the parties involved.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 959 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team held a press briefing following the conclusion of the third day of her impeachment trial. Lawyer Michael Poa, serving as counsel and spokesperson for the defense panel, addressed media inquiries regarding issues raised during the presentation of the prosecution's first witness, NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, as well as other developments in the day's proceedings before the Senate impeachment court.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report on the procedural aspects of the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It focuses on the actions of the defense team and their responses to the prosecution's case, without expressing strong ideological leanings. The framing remains neutral, as它

Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the defense team's post-trial briefing and mentions the involvement of Lawyer Michael Poa. While it doesn't include detailed content from the briefing, it does not make any false claims and stays within the bounds of reported events.

Why objectivity (95): The article remains objective, simply stating that the defense held a press briefing and mentioning the topics discussed without taking sides or using emotionally charged language.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 959 days ago

The article reports on an interview with Benjamin Tolosa Jr., the prosecution spokesperson, discussing the third day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. The interview was conducted by Inquirer.net on Wednesday. The article references live updates from the impeachment trial, which is ongoing as of July 8, 2026. No specific details about the trial's proceedings or Tolosa's statements are provided beyond the mention of the interview.

Bias read (Center): The article presents information about the prosecution's strategy during the impeachment trial but does not take a clear ideological stance. It focuses on reporting the planned actions of the prosecution without expressing judgment or emphasizing particular viewpoints. The framing remains neutral, t

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports the prosecution's stance on not focusing on lowering the conviction threshold, as stated by spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. It includes direct quotes from the legal representative, ensuring fidelity to the primary sources.

Why objectivity (95): The article presents the information objectively, quoting the prosecution's statements without adding any personal commentary or bias.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 909 days ago

During the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a prosecution witness, NBI agent John Mark Calilung, testified that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged hitman she was accused of hiring. Calilung stated he only became aware of Duterte's alleged threats after reviewing an online media briefing on November 23, 2024. During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned whether Calilung had any personal knowledge of the alleged assassin, to which he responded negatively. However, when asked by Senator-judge Bam Aquino, Calilung clarified that his investigation was limited to examining the video evidence. The testimony highlights ongoing legal proceedings and challenges in establishing concrete evidence regarding Duterte's alleged involvement in the case.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the testimony without overtly favoring either side. It reports the witness's admission of lacking personal knowledge of the alleged hitman and includes both prosecution and defense interactions. There is no clear ideological slant in the framing or emphasis

Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the defense's decision not to play the full video of Sara Duterte's press conference, focusing instead on selected clips. This matches the primary source documents that mention the defense's objection to the prosecution's use of excerpts.

Why objectivity (90): The article remains balanced, noting the defense's reasoning for not playing the full video and presenting the situation objectively without favoring either side.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 909 days ago

The article provides a compilation of key moments from the second day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial in the Philippines. It mentions that President Duterte was present at the Senate but did not attend the afternoon hearing in person. The article highlights the compilation of developments, including testimony from the prosecution's first witness, courtroom exchanges, and press briefings, which were organized into a single playlist for easier viewing. The piece also references a related story where Duterte's lawyers questioned Senator Francisco Escudero, who was serving as the impeachment trial presider.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the impeachment trial proceedings without overtly favoring any side. It reports on the presence of Vice President Duterte, the absence during part of the hearing, and the compilation of key moments without taking a clear stance on the legitimacy or outcome

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports the prosecution's claim of victory on Day 2, citing the overruling of defense objections and the continued presentation of evidence. This aligns with the primary source documents that mention the prosecution's statements.

Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information in a balanced manner, reporting the prosecution's claims without appearing to endorse or criticize them.

RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 857 days ago

In early July 2026, Filipino politician Senator Rodante Marcoleta surrendered to the anti-graft court, Sandiganbayan, facing charges of plunder related to P75 million in campaign donations he received while serving as a congressman. His case involves motions to quash the charges and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. Meanwhile, the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte commenced, making her the first Philippine public official to be impeached twice. Senator Chiz Escudero was elected as the presiding officer, though legal challenges were raised against his election. During the trial, Duterte made a brief appearance and defended her actions, with her defense team arguing that her alleged threats were personal rather than official. The article also includes photographs from various global events, highlighting non-political happenings.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both political developments involving high-profile figures like Senator Marcoleta and Vice President Duterte without overtly favoring either side. It reports on legal proceedings and parliamentary procedures without evident ideological slant. While the topics are highly politic化

Why factuality (90): The article accurately summarizes recent developments, including Marcoleta's surrender, the impeachment trial's start, and details about the trial setup. It references the trial's timeline and procedural aspects, matching the primary source document.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, providing factual updates without apparent bias. It reports on various stakeholders' actions without taking sides.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 859 days ago

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has expressed support for any actions taken by the Senate during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, provided they remain within legal boundaries. This statement was made by Palace Press Officer Claire Castro in response to Senator Pia Cayetano's comment that the administration is 'very supportive' of the process. The situation highlights the ongoing political tensions within the Philippines regarding the impeachment proceedings against a high-ranking official.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a neutral stance by quoting both the President's support for the Senate's actions and the senator's remarks, without showing favoritism towards either side. It does not use biased language or selectively present information to sway the reader's opinion.

Why factuality (90): The article summarizes the House prosecution's preparations for the upcoming day of the trial, referencing the press briefing and the continuation of the trial. It aligns with the primary source document and provides accurate context.

Why objectivity (85): The article is generally neutral but includes promotional elements such as 'WATCH:' and links, which might subtly influence reader engagement rather than maintaining strict objectivity.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 703 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte faces an incitement to sedition charge from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), according to NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc. During a hearing related to Duterte's impeachment, Lotoc clarified that actual sedition is not required for such charges, emphasizing that intent to overthrow the government or disrupt public order suffices. He argued that Duterte's alleged comments about hiring a hitman to target President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and others pose a threat to public safety and governmental stability. Lotoc highlighted the role of public officials as models and warned that unchecked behavior by leaders could lead to broader societal unrest.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal reasoning behind the incitement to sedition charge without overtly endorsing or criticizing either side. It reports on the legal interpretation provided by an official (Jeremy Lotoc) and contextualizes it within the ongoing impeachment proceedings. While the subject is

Why factuality (90): The article accurately explains the legal basis for the incitement to sedition charge against Vice President Sara Duterte, quoting NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc. It provides relevant background on the impeachment proceedings and the nature of the charges, aligning closely with the cross-source

Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone but includes quotes from the NBI director that may carry implicit support for the prosecution's stance. The framing of the charge as legally justified based on the law suggests a certain alignment with the prosecution's argument.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 88Objective 859 days ago

During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, NBI agent John Mark Calilung testified that the agency investigated her alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. based on its mandate under Republic Act No. 10867, even though no formal complaint was filed. Calilung explained that the NBI's role includes investigating threats against high-ranking officials like the president, vice president, and others, and that investigations can be initiated without a complaint. He noted that while the threat was classified as 'conditional' in his affidavit, his personal assessment deemed it 'absolute,' citing pre-existing agreements and potential loopholes. The testimony highlights the legal framework and investigative process used by the NBI in assessing such claims.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual testimony from an NBI agent regarding the legal basis and methodology of an investigation into alleged threats by a high-profile political figure. While the subject matter is politically sensitive, the framing remains neutral, focusing on procedural aspects and legal依据.

Why factuality (88): The article accurately summarizes the legal battle over financial records and the court's deferral of its ruling, as outlined in the primary source. It includes quotes from both the prosecution and the defense, providing a balanced view of the arguments.

Why objectivity (85): The tone remains neutral, focusing on the legal arguments and the procedural status of the trial. There is no evident bias toward either side, and the language remains professional and objective.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 88Objective 757 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte's campaign team sought permission from Senate Secretary Renato Bantug to bring their own equipment and hire a caterer for the holding area during her impeachment trial. The requests were part of administrative and logistical discussions during a visit by OVP Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez. Bantug confirmed that the vice president's team could bring a refrigerator, coffee maker, and arrange their own catering. The OVP emphasized that these arrangements were for the benefit of all involved, including the defense team and media. Lopez' visit occurred a day after the impeachment court subpoenaed her as a witness, though the meeting focused solely on procedural matters. A holding room was also prepared for Duterte to attend the proceedings if she chooses to do so.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the logistics of Vice President Duterte's impeachment trial without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the administrative requests made by her campaign team and the responses from Senate officials, maintaining neutrality in tone and word

Why factuality (88): The article accurately reflects the prosecution's assessment of the trial's progress, mentioning the challenges faced and the successful playback of the videos. It aligns with the primary source's description of the trial's dynamics.

Why objectivity (75): There is a slight positive spin on the prosecution's performance, using terms like 'scored points,' which may indicate a favorable perspective.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 909 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team chose not to play the full 2-hour press conference from November 2024 during her impeachment trial, despite initially objecting to the prosecution's use of selected clips. The defense argued that showing the entire video would provide necessary context for Duterte's remarks. However, during cross-examination, the defense shifted strategy and opted to present specific segments of the video instead. These clips focused on Zuleika Lopez, the Chief of Staff to the Office of the Vice President, who expressed fear for her life while in House custody. The defense sought to confirm whether these clips were reviewed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in their investigation into allegations of 'grave threats' made by Duterte.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both the defense and prosecution's positions neutrally, focusing on procedural decisions during the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the legal arguments and evidence presented without apparent bias toward Sara Duterte or her opponents.

Why factuality (85): The article accurately summarizes the prosecution's plans for Day 3 of the trial as outlined by spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. However, it lacks specific details about the planned activities, which are not explicitly mentioned in the primary sources.

Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a neutral tone, summarizing the prosecution's strategy without expressing any personal opinions or biases.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 802 days ago

On July 14, 2026, the Senate impeachment court ruled that all parties involved in Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial must cease providing detailed explanations for the withdrawal of witnesses. This decision came after defense counsel Sheila Sison argued that the prosecution's lengthy legal arguments accompanying witness withdrawals skewed the proceedings and undermined fairness. Sison emphasized that the sole intent should be to inform the court of the withdrawal, without additional legal interpretations or conclusions. Presiding Senator-judge Francis Escudero acknowledged the prosecution's arguments as 'tender offers of excluded evidence' and allowed the defense to request similar restraint. The ruling aims to streamline the process while maintaining transparency and public accountability.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a procedural ruling without overt ideological slant. While the impeachment trial itself is politically charged, the focus is on legal procedure rather than advocacy for any particular political stance. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal implications of witness-wr

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that the Senate impeachment court ruled that parties in Vice President Sara Duterte’s trial should not explain their decision to withdraw witnesses. It aligns with the primary source document which mentions the court ordering this action. However, it does not mention t

Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, presenting both sides' positions without overt bias. However, there is a slight lean towards the defense perspective by quoting defense counsel Sheila Sison in detail, which could be seen as giving more weight to the defense's concerns.

RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 759 days ago

An article reports on the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, revealing that she admitted during a Zoom meeting on November 23, 2024, to instructing a hitman to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and his cousin. The admission was captured in a video, and despite attempts by defense lawyers to discredit the evidence, the truth could not be denied. The piece criticizes the slow judicial process while highlighting the gravity of the confession and the implications for accountability within the Duterte family.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the revelation of Sara Duterte's alleged involvement in planning assassinations as a significant political scandal, emphasizing the moral and legal implications. While presenting factual information, it uses strong language ('elephant in the room,' 'nepo baby') and highlights the矛

Why factuality (85): The article accurately describes the events of the impeachment trial and the content of the video presented. However, it assumes certain facts without explicit confirmation from the primary sources, such as the exact nature of the threats made by Duterte. It also makes generalizations about the lega

Why objectivity (75): The article is somewhat biased, using phrases like 'unholy hours' and 'biggest Duterte nepo baby' which suggest a negative view of Duterte. While it acknowledges the importance of due process, it leans toward a critical perspective of the trial.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 709 days ago

Vice President Sara Duterte's chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez, has been named as a potential witness in the ongoing impeachment trial against Duterte. The prosecution plans to call Lopez alongside two others—lawyer Jeremy Lotoc of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Capt. Belinda Bello of the House of Representatives' Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms—to testify on Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which charges Duterte with making 'grave threats' against high-ranking government officials. The testimony comes amid controversy surrounding Lopez's detention at the House premises in November 2024, where she was cited for contempt for allegedly interfering with an investigation into alleged misuse of confidential funds within Duterte's office. During this period, Duterte reportedly made disparaging remarks about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

Bias read (Center): The article provides a factual account of the impeachment proceedings and does not exhibit clear bias toward either side. It reports on the planned testimonies and contextualizes them with relevant background information without overtly favoring the prosecution or defense.

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the prosecution's stance that the defense failed to undermine the allegations against Vice President Duterte. It references specific statements from Rep. Terry Ridon and mentions the cross-examination of Jeremy Lotoc, which matches the primary source information.

Why objectivity (70): While the article provides factual reporting, it leans slightly toward the prosecution's narrative by emphasizing the failure of the defense to weaken the allegations, potentially giving more weight to the prosecution's position.

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 709 days ago

House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V interpreted Vice President Sara Duterte's comments during an impeachment trial discussion as indicating a preference for 'blood'-related topics, such as bloodbaths or being bloodied. During a press briefing, Ortega humorously suggested that Duterte's favorite drink might be Bloody Mary, implying a thematic connection between her remarks and blood-related imagery. The comment appears to be a lighthearted critique of Duterte's rhetoric rather than a direct statement on the impeachment proceedings. The exchange highlights the informal tone used by political figures in discussing serious legislative matters.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames Duterte's statements through a humorous and potentially critical lens, suggesting a dismissive or mocking attitude toward her emphasis on 'blood' during the impeachment trial. While not overtly partisan, the framing leans left by highlighting Duterte's controversial rhetoric in a輕

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on House Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega's interpretation of Vice President Sara Duterte's statements, suggesting a metaphorical association with 'blood.' It provides context about the impeachment trial and Duterte's rhetoric, aligning with the cross-source consensus.

Why objectivity (70): The article uses a metaphor ('Bloody Mary') that could be seen as provocative or biased depending on interpretation. While it remains factual in reporting Ortega's take, the choice of words might subtly influence reader perception, leaning toward a critical tone.