Former Senate president Franklin Drilon warned of growing public frustration with the slow pace of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, urging the Senate to take stronger control of the proceedings. Speaking during a town hall with Rappler+ members on July 17, 2026, Drilon described the trial as suffering from “impeachment fatigue” just two weeks into the process. He criticized the manner in which lawyers have approached the trial, likening it to an ordinary court case rather than a high-stakes political and constitutional proceeding. According to Drilon, this approach has led to unnecessary delays, particularly in the handling of evidence. Drilon pointed to the extensive time spent authenticating a video of Duterte making threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House speaker Martin Romualdez. The video, which has already been widely viewed by millions of Filipinos, required two full days of procedural review before it could be officially accepted as evidence. Drilon argued that the parties involved could have either stipulated to the video’s authenticity or allowed the impeachment court to take judicial notice of it, thereby saving valuable time. He emphasized that the trial is not merely a legal proceeding but also a public affair, one that requires clarity and engagement. Drilon called for greater authority from Senate President Win Gatchalian and impeachment court presiding officer Chiz Escudero to manage the trial more efficiently. He noted that the Senate leadership has a responsibility to ensure that the public remains informed and interested in the outcome of the proceedings. Drilon expressed confidence that reforms would follow once the court evaluates the first two weeks of the trial. The impeachment trial, which began on July 6, has thus far lasted approximately 26.98 hours. It is scheduled to continue from Monday to Wednesday, starting at 2 p.m. However, the trial has faced challenges in terms of speed and efficiency. A recent decision by the House prosecution to not present at least six witnesses helped expedite the process slightly, although only two witnesses have testified so far. The trial is expected to span 92 days, potentially extending into early 2027. Senator Erwin Tulfo, speaking on July 19, suggested that the Senate could adjust its schedule to better accommodate the public. He proposed holding trial sessions from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with possible extensions to 3 p.m. if necessary. Proceedings would then conclude with the Senate’s regular session at 4 p.m. However, according to the pre-trial brief, trial sessions starting July 28 are set to begin at 3 p.m., running from Wednesday to Thursday. These scheduling differences highlight ongoing discussions about how best to balance the demands of the trial with the need for public accessibility. Meanwhile, the Senate has rejected Vice President Duterte’s request for the chamber to cover the cost of catering for her staff and legal team. Senator Erwin Tulfo stated that the decision was made by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, with the majority of senators opposing the request. They raised concerns about financial accountability and the potential for scrutiny from the Commission on Audit. The Senate maintains that food for the OVP’s personnel is not included in its budget, and accepting such a request could lead to complications in future allocations. Representative Terry Ridon highlighted another critical aspect of the trial: identifying the true beneficiaries of the alleged misuse of confidential funds. He noted that the prosecution will focus on verifying the existence of individuals such as “Mary Grace Piattos” and “Milky Secuya,” who are listed as recipients of funds allegedly misused by Duterte. Ridon emphasized that if these individuals are fictional, the trial must determine who actually received the money. This issue will be central to the prosecution’s arguments as they prepare to present evidence on the charges of misuse of confidential funds and betrayal of public trust. The prosecution is set to begin presenting evidence related to the confidential funds charge on July 22. This includes records from the Philippine Statistics Authority indicating that no official documents, such as birth, marriage, or death certificates, exist for the named recipients. Additionally, the prosecution plans to bring in an expert from the National Bureau of Investigation to analyze signature similarities on acknowledgment receipts. The Commission on Audit’s findings, including a notice of disallowance covering P73.287 million in disputed expenses, will also be presented as part of the evidence. These materials aim to establish whether the funds were used lawfully or if their use constitutes a breach of public trust.
5 poročil
RapplerNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 75pred 12 dneviNekdanji predsednik senata Franklin Drilon je med dogodkom v mestni dvorani izrazil zaskrbljenost zaradi počasnega tempa sojenja za impeachment proti podpredsednici Sari Duterte in opozoril na "utrujenost od impeachmenta" šele dva tedna po začetku postopka.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Drilon kritizira postopkovne zamude, ne da bi stopil na stran glede bistva primera.
Zakaj dejstva (90): The article accurately reports on former Senate president Franklin Drilon's comments regarding impeachment fatigue and calls for streamlining the trial. These statements are supported by the context of the ongoing trial and the legal procedures outlined in the primary source document. The informatio
Zakaj objektivnost (75): While the article provides factual reporting, it carries a somewhat critical tone towards the current pace of the trial, suggesting that the process is inefficient. This slight bias is evident in the emphasis on the need for faster proceedings.
Erwin Tulfo: Senat nima proračuna za ponudbo hrane podpredsednikuSenator Erwin Tulfo je izjavil, da je večina v senatu zavrnila prošnjo podpredsednice Sare Duterte, da senat pokrije stroške prehrane za njeno osebje in pravno ekipo med njenim tekočim sodnim postopkom. Predsednik senata Sherwin Gatchalian bo sprejel končno odločitev, vendar je Tulfo navedel, da večina nasprotuje zahtevi.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni tako prošnja podpredsednika kot tudi nasprotovanje senata, ne da bi očitno zagovarjali katero koli stran.
Zakaj dejstva (85): The article accurately reports Sen. Erwin Tulfo's statement regarding the Senate's rejection of Vice President Duterte's catering request. It references the specific details from Duterte's letter dated July 7, including the request for the Senate to shoulder food and beverage costs and the requireme
Zakaj objektivnost (80): The article presents the statements of Sen. Erwin Tulfo and Vice President Duterte in a neutral manner, quoting both sides. However, there is a slight倾向 towards reporting the Senate's position as more principled, which could be seen as a minor editorial tilt. The language remains generally objective
Če Mary Grace Piattos ne obstaja, kdo je dobil denar?Reprezentant Terry Ridon je napovedal, da se bo tožilstvo osredotočilo na preverjanje identitete posameznikov, kot sta "Mary Grace Piattos" in "Milky Secuya", ki naj bi prejeli zaupna sredstva iz pisarne podpredsednika (OVP).
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku se obravnava postopek opozarjanja kot legitimen pravni postopek, katerega cilj je, da se podpredsednik Duterte zaveže odgovornosti za domnevno finančno kršitev.
Zakaj dejstva (85): The article accurately reflects the arguments made by Robert Ace Barbers and Benjamin Tolosa, emphasizing that impeachment is not a popularity contest. It references the SWS survey and the legal precedent of Chief Justice Corona’s trial, maintaining factual consistency.
Zakaj objektivnost (80): The article leans slightly toward the prosecution's viewpoint by reinforcing the idea that public opinion should not influence the impeachment process. This subtle bias affects the overall objectivity.
RapplerNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 80Objektivnost 88pred 15 dnevi Preverjanje dejstev: Senatu ni bila poslana nobena nova pritožba za impeachment proti MarcosuNa družbenih omrežjih je krožila trditev, da je bila Senatu poslana nova pritožba za impeachment proti filipinskemu predsedniku Ferdinandu Marcosu Jr., ki je bila preverjena in ocenjena kot napačna. Najnovejše pritožbe za impeachment proti Marcosu so bile zavrnjene februarja 2026, kar je sprožilo enoletno obdobje imunitete od nadaljnjih postopkov za impeachment.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja uravnoteženo preverjanje dejstev o trditvi, ki se nanaša na politično okolje na Filipinih, in zagotavlja tako lažno trditev kot preverjene dejstva, ne da bi zavzel stališče.
Zakaj dejstva (80): The article accurately reports the impeachment court's ruling regarding the withdrawal of witnesses. It includes direct quotes from Senator-Judge Escudero and defense counsel Sheila Sison. However, it lacks some contextual details found in the primary source documents, such as the specific witnesses
Zakaj objektivnost (88): The article maintains a balanced perspective, presenting both the defense's concerns and the court's ruling without showing favoritism. It uses neutral language throughout.
Podpredsednik obrambne ekipe, osebje bo morda moralo plačati za lastno hrano.Predsednik senata Sherwin Gatchalian je med sojenjem za impeachment podpredsednice Sare Duterte izjavil, da senat ne more privoščiti kritja stroškov prehrane za Dutertejevo osebje in pravno ekipo. Urad podpredsednika je predhodno zahteval, da senat zagotovi hrano in pijačo za te posameznike na stroške senata. Gatchalian je pojasnil, da čeprav senat še ni uradno odgovoril na to zahtevo, proračunske omejitve onemogočajo odobritev zahteve.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja obe strani razprave glede odgovornosti Senata za financiranje catering za proces impeachment. Medtem ko je nekaj kritik na zahtevo OVP, poročanje ostaja uravnotežena s citiranjem več pogledov, vključno s tistimi iz vodstva Senata in nasprotnik
Zakaj dejstva (75): The article repeats the survey findings from article 3 but adds no new information. It is accurate but lacks additional context or depth compared to the original survey report.
Zakaj objektivnost (80): The article presents the survey results neutrally, focusing on the public's desire for decisions based on law and evidence rather than political factors.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
PH
