Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Before ruling on the Prosecution's request for a subpoena, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero asked the defense one final, nail-in-the-coffin question: "When did Sara Duterte and Mans Carpio get married?" Defense lawyer Atty. Michael Poa answered: "2007," adding that their properties are covered by the Absolute Community of Property regime.... show more

Princess Sara DuDirty

5,472 subscribers

198,713 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“We hope the President gives consent to release the VP’s tax records” This is House Prosecutor Chel Diokno’s appeal to PBBM after Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has formally granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the confidential financial and tax records of VP Sara Duterte & husband, Mans Carpio from 2007-2021. In an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel #ANCHeadstart this morning before today’s oral arguments, Diokno said, “This is not about interference, tungkulin niya ito.. we do hope in the name of transparency he will grant this” NOTE: The late PNOY granted his written consent for release of Corona’s tax records during his impeachment trial in January 2012.

“We hope the President gives consent to release the VP’s tax records” This is House Prosecutor Chel Diokno’s appeal to PBBM after Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero has formally granted the prosecution’s request to subpoena the confidential financial and tax records of VP Sara Duterte & husband, Mans Carpio from 2007-2021. In an interview with ABS-CBN News Channel #ANCHeadstart this morning before today’s oral arguments, Diokno said, “This is not about interference, tungkulin niya ito.. we do hope in the name of transparency he will grant this” NOTE: The late PNOY granted his written consent for release of Corona’s tax records during his impeachment trial in January 2012.

Karen Davila

48,753 views • 1 month ago

ALENG PETER CAWATANO, THE DEFENSE LAWYER FOR THE TWICE-IMPEACHED VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, INDAY LUSTAY SARA DUTERTE, IS TRYING HARD TO "ARGUE" AGAINST ALLOWING THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT TO SUBPOENA HER BANK AND TAX RECORDS. WILL THIS LIVE-SELLER SENATOR-JUDGE BE ABLE TO DEFEND INDAY LUSTAY ON THIS ISSUE? ATTY. CHEL DIOKNO REMAINS UNBOTHERED BY THE DEFENSE LAWYER'S LINE OF QUESTIONING. HE STAYS FOCUSED ON THE FACTS, THE LAW, AND THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT. #cheldiokno #alanpetercayetano #senateph #impeachment #saraduterte

ALENG PETER CAWATANO, THE DEFENSE LAWYER FOR THE TWICE-IMPEACHED VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, INDAY LUSTAY SARA DUTERTE, IS TRYING HARD TO "ARGUE" AGAINST ALLOWING THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT TO SUBPOENA HER BANK AND TAX RECORDS. WILL THIS LIVE-SELLER SENATOR-JUDGE BE ABLE TO DEFEND INDAY LUSTAY ON THIS ISSUE? ATTY. CHEL DIOKNO REMAINS UNBOTHERED BY THE DEFENSE LAWYER'S LINE OF QUESTIONING. HE STAYS FOCUSED ON THE FACTS, THE LAW, AND THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT. #cheldiokno #alanpetercayetano #senateph #impeachment #saraduterte

Princess Sara DuDirty

22,837 views • 1 month ago

MATIBAG TELLS VINLUAN: 'ASKED AND ANSWERED' WATCH: A light moment unfolded during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after NBI director Melvin Matibag told defense lawyer Mark Vinluan that his question had already been "asked and answered." Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero gently reminded Matibag that while he was correct, he could not make a ruling on his behalf. | Lance Mejico

MATIBAG TELLS VINLUAN: 'ASKED AND ANSWERED' WATCH: A light moment unfolded during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte after NBI director Melvin Matibag told defense lawyer Mark Vinluan that his question had already been "asked and answered." Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero gently reminded Matibag that while he was correct, he could not make a ruling on his behalf. | Lance Mejico

NewsWatch Plus PH

15,117 views • 1 month ago

PIA CAYETANO ON SUBPOENA FOR DUTERTE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS: ‘HINDI BA INVASIVE ’YUN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Pia Cayetano asked whether compelling the production of Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records through a subpoena would be as invasive as implementing a search warrant. House prosecutor Chel Diokno responded that documents produced in compliance with a subpoena are not automatically considered evidence, unlike those seized through a search warrant. Defense lawyer Michael Poa, meanwhile, maintained that opening all of the vice president’s bank records would be intrusive. | Eimor Santos

PIA CAYETANO ON SUBPOENA FOR DUTERTE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS: ‘HINDI BA INVASIVE ’YUN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Pia Cayetano asked whether compelling the production of Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records through a subpoena would be as invasive as implementing a search warrant. House prosecutor Chel Diokno responded that documents produced in compliance with a subpoena are not automatically considered evidence, unlike those seized through a search warrant. Defense lawyer Michael Poa, meanwhile, maintained that opening all of the vice president’s bank records would be intrusive. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

23,723 views • 1 month ago

WATCH: Presiding officer Chiz Escudero confirmed during cross examination that the Senate impeachment court did not issue a subpoena for witness NBI Dir. Melvin Matibag to appear in court today, July 21. The prosecution said that Matibag is on their witness list and was subpoenaed last week. #VPOnTrial Visit for more updates. Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte:

WATCH: Presiding officer Chiz Escudero confirmed during cross examination that the Senate impeachment court did not issue a subpoena for witness NBI Dir. Melvin Matibag to appear in court today, July 21. The prosecution said that Matibag is on their witness list and was subpoenaed last week. #VPOnTrial Visit for more updates. Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte:

GMA News

67,057 views • 1 month ago

‘KAILANGAN MAKITA NG PUBLIKO AT SENATOR-JUDGES ANG TUNAY NA KULAY NG BISE PRESIDENTE’ WATCH: House prosecutor Chel Diokno defends the request to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records, including those from when she was Davao City mayor and vice mayor, saying these are directly relevant to determining her fitness—or unfitness—to serve as Vice President, an impeachable position. “From 2007 to 2013, ayon sa records ng AMLC, lumampas sa P3 billion ang kanyang financial activity,” Diokno said, adding that the question is whether Duterte betrayed public trust and violated the Constitution by amassing unexplained wealth. Diokno also noted that the financial records of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona, including those from before he became the country’s top magistrate, were examined during his impeachment trial. | Eimor Santos

‘KAILANGAN MAKITA NG PUBLIKO AT SENATOR-JUDGES ANG TUNAY NA KULAY NG BISE PRESIDENTE’ WATCH: House prosecutor Chel Diokno defends the request to subpoena Vice President Sara Duterte’s bank and tax records, including those from when she was Davao City mayor and vice mayor, saying these are directly relevant to determining her fitness—or unfitness—to serve as Vice President, an impeachable position. “From 2007 to 2013, ayon sa records ng AMLC, lumampas sa P3 billion ang kanyang financial activity,” Diokno said, adding that the question is whether Duterte betrayed public trust and violated the Constitution by amassing unexplained wealth. Diokno also noted that the financial records of the late former Chief Justice Renato Corona, including those from before he became the country’s top magistrate, were examined during his impeachment trial. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

23,722 views • 1 month ago

'ONE SIDE HAS BEEN CROSSING THE LINE MANY, MANY TIMES' Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero says that he already in the process of drafting a "ruling, a warning, and an order" due to some individuals who have violated the Rule 18 of the impeachment rules. Escudero added that he will announce the ruling on Monday. This came after Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison criticized in her manifestation House private prosecutor Virgil Ligutan's social media post, saying that the post was "in bad taste." #VPonTrial Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte:

'ONE SIDE HAS BEEN CROSSING THE LINE MANY, MANY TIMES' Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero says that he already in the process of drafting a "ruling, a warning, and an order" due to some individuals who have violated the Rule 18 of the impeachment rules. Escudero added that he will announce the ruling on Monday. This came after Defense lead counsel Sheila Sison criticized in her manifestation House private prosecutor Virgil Ligutan's social media post, saying that the post was "in bad taste." #VPonTrial Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte:

GMA News

202,993 views • 18 days ago

‘ANG ARKITEKTO AT MASTERMIND NITO AY SI VICE PRESIDENT SARA DUTERTE’ House prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia made the remark while questioning OVP Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio about the handling of the confidential funds. Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer immediately objected and moved to strike the statement from the record. Presiding Officer Sen. Chiz Escudero sustained the objection and instructed Divinagracia to use more appropriate wording. Escudero suggested phrasing the question in terms of whether the actions were approved by, consented to, or done with the full knowledge of Vice President Sara Duterte. The defense later asked the court to remind the prosecution to avoid terms such as “scam,” “mastermind,” and “lying,” which it said were inappropriate for the proceedings. Escudero agreed, noting that similar strong statements had previously been stricken from the record. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

‘ANG ARKITEKTO AT MASTERMIND NITO AY SI VICE PRESIDENT SARA DUTERTE’ House prosecution counsel Mae Divinagracia made the remark while questioning OVP Assistant Secretary and Assistant Chief of Staff Lemuel Ortonio about the handling of the confidential funds. Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer immediately objected and moved to strike the statement from the record. Presiding Officer Sen. Chiz Escudero sustained the objection and instructed Divinagracia to use more appropriate wording. Escudero suggested phrasing the question in terms of whether the actions were approved by, consented to, or done with the full knowledge of Vice President Sara Duterte. The defense later asked the court to remind the prosecution to avoid terms such as “scam,” “mastermind,” and “lying,” which it said were inappropriate for the proceedings. Escudero agreed, noting that similar strong statements had previously been stricken from the record. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

Bilyonaryo News Channel

36,968 views • 6 days ago

'WE JUST WANT TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE' This is what House private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia answered when Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano reminded both sides to be “circumspect without pointing fingers at anyone” after the Defense objected to the Prosecution’s use of terms such as “scam.” "Within the limits, you may," presiding officer Chiz Escudero responded to the prosecution. Additionally, Cayetano noted that words with negative connotations could go viral and potentially affect the court’s decision in the end.#VPonTrial Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte: Read updates here:

'WE JUST WANT TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE' This is what House private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia answered when Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano reminded both sides to be “circumspect without pointing fingers at anyone” after the Defense objected to the Prosecution’s use of terms such as “scam.” "Within the limits, you may," presiding officer Chiz Escudero responded to the prosecution. Additionally, Cayetano noted that words with negative connotations could go viral and potentially affect the court’s decision in the end.#VPonTrial Tune in to the live coverage of GMA News on the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte: Read updates here:

GMA News

37,553 views • 6 days ago

‘PWEDE PALAMPASIN ANG ALLEGED GRAVE THREATS KUNG MAY LEHITIMONG DAHILAN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questions the relevance of showing the video of Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, during the cross-examination of a witness in relation to alleged threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. “Sinasabi ba ng depensa na yung mga alleged threats or alleged incitements ni VP Duterte ay prompted nung detention ni Atty. Lopez,” Hontiveros asks, referring to the chief of staff of the Office of the Vice President. Defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa replies in the affirmative, arguing that the alleged threats stemmed from what he described as the House of Representatives’ “systematic oppression.” Hontiveros then asks, “Position po ba ng depensa na pwede palampsin ang alleged grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta?” “That’s not the point,” Narvasa responds. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero then reminds senator-judges to avoid questions that would require counsel to draw legal conclusions, saying such arguments are more appropriate during closing arguments. | Eimor Santos

‘PWEDE PALAMPASIN ANG ALLEGED GRAVE THREATS KUNG MAY LEHITIMONG DAHILAN?’ WATCH: Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questions the relevance of showing the video of Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, during the cross-examination of a witness in relation to alleged threats against President Marcos, the First Lady, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. “Sinasabi ba ng depensa na yung mga alleged threats or alleged incitements ni VP Duterte ay prompted nung detention ni Atty. Lopez,” Hontiveros asks, referring to the chief of staff of the Office of the Vice President. Defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa replies in the affirmative, arguing that the alleged threats stemmed from what he described as the House of Representatives’ “systematic oppression.” Hontiveros then asks, “Position po ba ng depensa na pwede palampsin ang alleged grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta?” “That’s not the point,” Narvasa responds. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero then reminds senator-judges to avoid questions that would require counsel to draw legal conclusions, saying such arguments are more appropriate during closing arguments. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

531,902 views • 1 month ago

🔸The 2-Minute Snippet vs. The 2.5-Hour Tantrum of Sara Duterte. Atty Carlo Narvasa really thought he did something there yesterday, by demanding they play all 2.5 hours of Sara Duterte throwing tantrums and threatening the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House. It was an obvious, desperate stall tactic because the defense is terrified of the actual receipts. They wanted to drown out the most damning part; but Atty. Virgil Ligutan was not about to bite. He basically told Narvasa: “Kami ang prosecution, kaya kami ang masusunod kung paano namin ihahain ang ebidensya.” The prosecution only needed that highly relevant, chilling 2-minute and 18-second clip to prove the grave threats charge, and they were not going to waste time on fluff. Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero immediately sided with Ligutan again, and shut down the drama. Essentially, Ligutan forced the defense into a corner where they had to sit and watch their client's own taped words be forensically authenticated on record. Today, Narvasa will cross examine NBI agent Calilung and Ligutan will raise objections. Who will tune in?

🔸The 2-Minute Snippet vs. The 2.5-Hour Tantrum of Sara Duterte. Atty Carlo Narvasa really thought he did something there yesterday, by demanding they play all 2.5 hours of Sara Duterte throwing tantrums and threatening the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House. It was an obvious, desperate stall tactic because the defense is terrified of the actual receipts. They wanted to drown out the most damning part; but Atty. Virgil Ligutan was not about to bite. He basically told Narvasa: “Kami ang prosecution, kaya kami ang masusunod kung paano namin ihahain ang ebidensya.” The prosecution only needed that highly relevant, chilling 2-minute and 18-second clip to prove the grave threats charge, and they were not going to waste time on fluff. Presiding Judge Chiz Escudero immediately sided with Ligutan again, and shut down the drama. Essentially, Ligutan forced the defense into a corner where they had to sit and watch their client's own taped words be forensically authenticated on record. Today, Narvasa will cross examine NBI agent Calilung and Ligutan will raise objections. Who will tune in?

Thea Tan

41,610 views • 1 month ago

Senate President Chiz Escudero said they can dismiss the impeachment complaint with just the majority vote It is as if Escudero is laying out the predicate — testing the waters and public clamour when the possibility of them dismissing the impeachment complaint actually happens. After the whole remand of the articles fiasco, we can see right through him and who is with him on this. It doesn’t take the most brilliant of minds to say that the constitution specifically says “TRY AND DECIDE” —- it is the mandate of the impeachment court for the actual trial to happen. Legal luminaries and even framers of the Philippine constitution call him out on this! I am beginning to believe what they say, that this is not about Sara Duterte anymore— this is about his Senate presidency. To decide whether or not the impeachment complaint is constitutional is not within the mandate of the Senate nor the impeachment court. Senate President Escudero is also trying to dilute the exclusive power granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings — saying they can decide to dismiss the case even before trial. One very dangerous precedent if you ask me. We haven’t heard a decent explanation nor defense from Sara Zimmerman Duterte, not one from formal or informal set-up. The Vice President kept diverting the issue into technicalities and accusations. Where did all the money go? I am not a fan of Atty. Fortun but I respect what he can do but not even his law firm can give good defense. Sara Duterte’ ad cautelam even cited rulings that are no longer valid. Please watch the explanation of Atty. Bucoy from his press conference earlier this afternoon.

Senate President Chiz Escudero said they can dismiss the impeachment complaint with just the majority vote It is as if Escudero is laying out the predicate — testing the waters and public clamour when the possibility of them dismissing the impeachment complaint actually happens. After the whole remand of the articles fiasco, we can see right through him and who is with him on this. It doesn’t take the most brilliant of minds to say that the constitution specifically says “TRY AND DECIDE” —- it is the mandate of the impeachment court for the actual trial to happen. Legal luminaries and even framers of the Philippine constitution call him out on this! I am beginning to believe what they say, that this is not about Sara Duterte anymore— this is about his Senate presidency. To decide whether or not the impeachment complaint is constitutional is not within the mandate of the Senate nor the impeachment court. Senate President Escudero is also trying to dilute the exclusive power granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings — saying they can decide to dismiss the case even before trial. One very dangerous precedent if you ask me. We haven’t heard a decent explanation nor defense from Sara Zimmerman Duterte, not one from formal or informal set-up. The Vice President kept diverting the issue into technicalities and accusations. Where did all the money go? I am not a fan of Atty. Fortun but I respect what he can do but not even his law firm can give good defense. Sara Duterte’ ad cautelam even cited rulings that are no longer valid. Please watch the explanation of Atty. Bucoy from his press conference earlier this afternoon.

Just

19,826 views • 1 year ago

'I AM PREVENTING MYSELF FROM GIVING HER A SPANKING' Tensions flared between House private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of COA witness Xylene Mae del Campo on the 15th day of the impeachment trial, August 12. The exchange began after Kapunan objected to Ferrer’s repeated request for the witness to answer “yes or no,” arguing that not all questions can be answered that way and that misleading questions are not allowed even during cross-examination. As the counsels went back and forth, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero urged them not to let their “generational divide” increase the tension in the courtroom. Kapunan then quipped, “Your Honor, please. I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, your Honor. That is what I would have done in the generational divide,” drawing laughter inside the impeachment court. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

'I AM PREVENTING MYSELF FROM GIVING HER A SPANKING' Tensions flared between House private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer during the cross-examination of COA witness Xylene Mae del Campo on the 15th day of the impeachment trial, August 12. The exchange began after Kapunan objected to Ferrer’s repeated request for the witness to answer “yes or no,” arguing that not all questions can be answered that way and that misleading questions are not allowed even during cross-examination. As the counsels went back and forth, Presiding Officer Chiz Escudero urged them not to let their “generational divide” increase the tension in the courtroom. Kapunan then quipped, “Your Honor, please. I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, your Honor. That is what I would have done in the generational divide,” drawing laughter inside the impeachment court. #ImpeachmentWatch #VPSaraOnTrial #BNCImpeachmentCoverage WATCH LIVE HERE:

Bilyonaryo News Channel

49,024 views • 19 days ago

Remember his iconic statement by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano from the CJ Corona impeachment trial? “If your client cannot explain, I cannot abstain. If you did not disclose, we have to depose. If you are not fit, you should not sit as the CJ of our Supreme Court.” Cayetano meant that if Chief Justice Renato Corona couldn't explain or disclose these hidden financial assets, the Senate was legally and morally obligated to remove ("depose") him as he was unfit to hold office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Back then, Cayetano was all about absolute financial transparency. He famously pushed to scrutinize Corona's bank records. Fast forward to the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte. The prosecution is calling on those exact same thing: to subpoena her financial records. Interestingly, Cayetano recently admitted, “I can tell you honestly right now, I don't know what to vote for...". Ah, really? Why don’t you watch this clip? Let’s see how he will vote in regards to the issuance of a subpoena for these financial records. Will he stick to his old battle cry, or nag-iba ang ihip ng hangin? Is it a yea or a nay?

Remember his iconic statement by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano from the CJ Corona impeachment trial? “If your client cannot explain, I cannot abstain. If you did not disclose, we have to depose. If you are not fit, you should not sit as the CJ of our Supreme Court.” Cayetano meant that if Chief Justice Renato Corona couldn't explain or disclose these hidden financial assets, the Senate was legally and morally obligated to remove ("depose") him as he was unfit to hold office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Back then, Cayetano was all about absolute financial transparency. He famously pushed to scrutinize Corona's bank records. Fast forward to the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte. The prosecution is calling on those exact same thing: to subpoena her financial records. Interestingly, Cayetano recently admitted, “I can tell you honestly right now, I don't know what to vote for...". Ah, really? Why don’t you watch this clip? Let’s see how he will vote in regards to the issuance of a subpoena for these financial records. Will he stick to his old battle cry, or nag-iba ang ihip ng hangin? Is it a yea or a nay?

Thea Tan

173,492 views • 1 month ago

WHY DID DUTERTE'S STAFF MEMBERS ASK FOR AN AUDIT QUERY? WATCH: Defense spokesperson Michael Poa explained the reason behind staff members of Vice President Sara Duterte asking for an audit query in place of an audit observation memorandum after a September 2023 meeting with the Commission on audit. "Sabi naman ng testigo 'to so I think I can say this at least, sabi naman ng testigo we were just there to clarify guidelines so siyempre ang position namin kung ka-clarify lang naman yung guidelines, bakit hindi nalang audit query ang gawin nila," Poa told media in a post-trial briefing. He also said the OVP asked him to attend the meeting which the COA Intelligence and Confidential Fund Office initiated, adding that members of other agencies also held meetings with the commission.

WHY DID DUTERTE'S STAFF MEMBERS ASK FOR AN AUDIT QUERY? WATCH: Defense spokesperson Michael Poa explained the reason behind staff members of Vice President Sara Duterte asking for an audit query in place of an audit observation memorandum after a September 2023 meeting with the Commission on audit. "Sabi naman ng testigo 'to so I think I can say this at least, sabi naman ng testigo we were just there to clarify guidelines so siyempre ang position namin kung ka-clarify lang naman yung guidelines, bakit hindi nalang audit query ang gawin nila," Poa told media in a post-trial briefing. He also said the OVP asked him to attend the meeting which the COA Intelligence and Confidential Fund Office initiated, adding that members of other agencies also held meetings with the commission.

NewsWatch Plus PH

13,541 views • 25 days ago

🚨Why Did Alan Drag PBBM into the Argument? Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano knew he couldn't beat House Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno on pure rules of evidence, so he did what politicians do best: he tried to turn a legal trial into a political drama. Here is why he dragged PBBM into the spotlight: 1. He wanted to make the House prosecutors look biased by framing it as *"Bakit kay PBBM protected ang bank records, pero kay VP Sara gustong kalkalin?" 2. He tried to force Diokno to either throw the House leadership under the bus for protecting BBM, or admit they’re treating VP Sara unfairly. 3. When the legal facts on bank secrecy exceptions favor the prosecution, your best defense is to cry political harassment. 🔸Why the Trap Completely Flunked Chel didn't fall for the bait. He served Alan a cold cup of Law 101 😂 1. BBM’s impeachment complaint was thrown out because it was “legally defective on day one” (puro generalized chitchat, no ultimate facts). You don't issue bank subpoenas for a case that has no legal standing! 2. VP Sara’s Article II actually contains specific charges of unexplained wealth backed by initial evidence. Subpoenaing her records isn't "selective harassment". It’s literally how it works! Alan tried to sell a political conspiracy, but Diokno reminded him that basic court procedure doesn't care about his political drama. Period! 🫢

🚨Why Did Alan Drag PBBM into the Argument? Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano knew he couldn't beat House Prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno on pure rules of evidence, so he did what politicians do best: he tried to turn a legal trial into a political drama. Here is why he dragged PBBM into the spotlight: 1. He wanted to make the House prosecutors look biased by framing it as *"Bakit kay PBBM protected ang bank records, pero kay VP Sara gustong kalkalin?" 2. He tried to force Diokno to either throw the House leadership under the bus for protecting BBM, or admit they’re treating VP Sara unfairly. 3. When the legal facts on bank secrecy exceptions favor the prosecution, your best defense is to cry political harassment. 🔸Why the Trap Completely Flunked Chel didn't fall for the bait. He served Alan a cold cup of Law 101 😂 1. BBM’s impeachment complaint was thrown out because it was “legally defective on day one” (puro generalized chitchat, no ultimate facts). You don't issue bank subpoenas for a case that has no legal standing! 2. VP Sara’s Article II actually contains specific charges of unexplained wealth backed by initial evidence. Subpoenaing her records isn't "selective harassment". It’s literally how it works! Alan tried to sell a political conspiracy, but Diokno reminded him that basic court procedure doesn't care about his political drama. Period! 🫢

Thea Tan

30,938 views • 1 month ago

$The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: "I don't really wanna answer all these questions." When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: "So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.$

The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: "I don't really wanna answer all these questions." When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: "So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.

Giggling Ganon

315,739 views • 2 months ago

Last week, a federal judge put a seven-day hold on the NFA ruling so the Justice Department could run to the Fifth Circuit and stop it before it took effect. That clock ran out. DOJ did not stop it. So now we have a legally bizarre situation: two people can walk into the same gun store, reach for the same suppressor, and one may be covered by the ruling while the other may still be committing a federal felony. The judge did not turn off the NFA for all of America. The relief applies to the plaintiffs, their members, their customers, and the covered entities in the case. Living in one of the plaintiff states does not automatically cover you personally. That means dealers are stuck in the middle, customers are confused, and everyone is waiting to see whether DOJ appeals within the larger window it still has left. So yes, this is a real win. But no, don’t get stupid. If your suppressor or SBR is sitting in eForms, talk to your dealer, figure out whether you are actually covered, and do not take legal advice from a comment section. The tax went to zero, and the government still wanted the paperwork. That tells you what the paperwork was really for.

Last week, a federal judge put a seven-day hold on the NFA ruling so the Justice Department could run to the Fifth Circuit and stop it before it took effect. That clock ran out. DOJ did not stop it. So now we have a legally bizarre situation: two people can walk into the same gun store, reach for the same suppressor, and one may be covered by the ruling while the other may still be committing a federal felony. The judge did not turn off the NFA for all of America. The relief applies to the plaintiffs, their members, their customers, and the covered entities in the case. Living in one of the plaintiff states does not automatically cover you personally. That means dealers are stuck in the middle, customers are confused, and everyone is waiting to see whether DOJ appeals within the larger window it still has left. So yes, this is a real win. But no, don’t get stupid. If your suppressor or SBR is sitting in eForms, talk to your dealer, figure out whether you are actually covered, and do not take legal advice from a comment section. The tax went to zero, and the government still wanted the paperwork. That tells you what the paperwork was really for.

Colion Noir

46,987 views • 8 days ago

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.

Just

69,229 views • 1 year ago