🚨 BREAKING: Senator Imee Marcos’s recent explosive claims have taken...

Uploaded: 2026-05-25T09:08:17.000Z
Duration: PT301.255S
Channel: Giyu 🇵🇭

3:15

‘THE FILIPINO PEOPLE DESERVE A GOVERNMENT FOCUSED ON SOLVING PROBLEMS’ Vice President Sara Duterte said the government has become “more preoccupied with protecting power than serving the people,” citing alleged attempts to silence critics. “A government that fears dissent is not demonstrating strength. It is revealing insecurity. And that insecurity is reflected in the direction our country is taking today,” Duterte remarked in a video statement Tuesday. Duterte cited the flood control controversy, her impeachment trial, and the charter change, saying those issues revealed “disturbing realities.” “The current state of our nation reveals three disturbing realities: first, the effort to divert attention from legitimate questions surrounding the flood control controversy; second, the willingness to disregard constitutional safeguards in pursuit of a politically motivated impeachment; and third, the relentless pursuit of greater political power under the guise of Charter Change,” she claimed. Duterte formally responded to impeachment articles on Monday, as the Senate is set to begin the trial on July 6, 2026.

The Philippine Star

665,006 views • 2 months ago

1:13

Protect one, forget the thousands If Senator Imee Marcos loses her senate seat — at least she can live in Davao City sipping coke zero and munching on lechon with the Dutertes and allies until 2028! Lols. (That is if Sara Duterte will not cut her off after benefiting from her, just like what she did to most of her allies in the past). The audacity of Imee Marcos to even utter the words “pamumulitika”, when she used the hearing to be friends again with the Impeached Vice President. Now, she’s with Sara Duterte everywhere she goes but is that enough for her to win the elections? I sincerely do not think so. I agree with the SILG Remulla, it is indeed important that Imee Marcos values due process unlike the people she is following. I just want to remind the Senator… thousands died because the Dutertes do not believe in due process. Thousands died without a day in court, without an opportunity to prove their innocence. Something Rodrigo Roa Duterte enjoys now in the Netherlands, an opportunity to defend himself with his prominent ICC lawyers. Thousands died, Senator Marcos. In your pursuit to protect one family, you are forgetting the thousands who now long for their deceased loved one. Just to end… I agree with VP Sara Duterte, I think it is time you change your last name. No joke, no joke.

Just

92,639 views • 1 year ago

1:21

POLITICAL STRATEGIST: PANGILINAN, HONTIVEROS, SOTTO, LACSON LIKELY TO VOTE FOR VP SARA IMPEACHMENT Political strategist Lito Banayo says both resignation and conviction are 'far-fetched' scenarios for Vice President Sara Duterte amid the impeachment complaints filed against her. Banayo argues that stepping down is unlikely, saying it is not in the Duterte family’s character to retreat from a political fight. He also believes VP Sara would not be convicted in the Senate should the impeachment case reach the upper chamber, expressing confidence that she has the numbers to survive. Banayo adds that her camp carefully weighed the pending impeachment complaints before she announced her presidential bid nearly two years ahead of the 2028 national elections. More on this in the full episode of #AtTheForefront.

Bilyonaryo News Channel

10,561 views • 5 months ago

0:41

DUTERTE’S POTENTIAL RUNNING MATE WATCH: Vice President Sara Duterte says she has already spoken with a potential running mate for the 2028 elections but declined to reveal the person’s identity. The vice president said the individual could become the subject of political attacks from the current administration once their name is disclosed. Duterte earlier announced her plan to run for president in the 2028 general elections. | Tristan Nodalo

NewsWatch Plus PH

27,399 views • 4 months ago

1:30

🚨Why Imee Marcos withdrew the “Con-Ass” video she presented at the Senate today: The moment Imee’s video dropped, everyone from Bam Aquino to her fellow senators completely dragged it for being pure fake news and cheap propaganda. The audacity was real, but the receipts? Non-existent. Let’s dissect this so-called “exposé” and see how it got utterly destroyed: 1. The “Term Extension” Conspiracy Plot 🙄 The Claim: The video basically alleges a massive chika that Malacañang and some senators are secretly plotting a Constitutional Assembly (Con-Ass). The goal? To extend PBBM’s term and block Sara Duterte from running in 2028. The Reality Check: 💥Former Majority Leader Migz Zubiri immediately called it BS, saying this is pure haka-haka and a baseless conspiracy theory. There’s zero official paperwork or actual proof. It’s literally just a fanfic narrative meant to stir up political drama on TikTok and FB. Fake news realness! 💥 Enter Ping Lacson: Senator Ping did not hold back. He straight-up branded Imee’s allegations as “flat, outright lies.” He revealed that while the senators meet frequently, they have never discussed taking over the Senate leadership for a Con-Ass plot. He even scoffed, “Whoever cooked up that tale, we don’t know what they are trying to get at.” Burn! 💥 Enter Tito Sotto: Former Senate President Tito Sotto completely shut down her narrative, telling the media, “Sana tinanong nila yung source nila” (They should’ve questioned their source). Sotto clarified he has nothing to do with any Cha-Cha allegations and has always opposed it. He even dragged the whole political class by saying the country doesn’t need Charter Change, it needs “character change” among elected officials. Ouch! —— 1. The High School-Level Labeling (“Bulaga 11” vs. “Great 13”) 🙄 The Claim: The video grouped the senators into cringey, heavily editorialized factions, calling the minority bloc the “Bulaga 11” and the majority the “Great 13.” The Reality Check: The senators were NOT having it. Senators Erwin and Raffy Tulfo, Kiko Pangilinan, and Win Gatchalian stood up and said, “Excuse me, what is this nonsense?” They pointed out that creating these fictional political factions is a total violation of Senate rules. It’s like Mean Girls clickbait propaganda designed just to divide people for clout. 💥 ——- 1. The Franken-Video Editing & “Chat Leaks” 🎬 The Claim: The video tried to look all legitimate by stitching together random clips of past leadership changes, alleged text leaks, and an unrelated ₱75-million plunder complaint involving Rep. Marcoleta to make it look like one big evil plot. The Reality Check: Senator Raffy completely slaughtered the video’s credibility. He said real exposés rely on actual unedited facts, but Imee’s video was just editorialized fiction. It used spliced clips out of context to manufacture a fake scandal. Total hao siao (fake) editing! The Ultimate Plot Twist: After getting utterly roasted by her colleagues, called out by Lacson and Sotto for peddling fake info, and with Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano stepping in, Imee Marcos had no choice but to take the L. She agreed to withdraw the “Con Ass” video from the permanent Senate records. Napahiya real quick! 😂

Thea Tan

58,995 views • 2 months ago

1:36

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon said that the 2028 presidential elections are already being shaped by developments in the Senate. Drilon also told #OnPoint that if the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte pushes through, it would be politically damaging for her. He added that, as a matter of strategy, her camp is reportedly finding ways to prevent the trial from proceeding.

Bilyonaryo News Channel

53,407 views • 2 months ago

6:58

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,328 views • 5 months ago

0:41

This is President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe saying that he has no desire to do more that 2 terns in office, that was in January 2018 talking to Richard Quest on CNN. It is a public secret that the Third Term movement is already in motion. What you need to know is that a Third Term at law is illegal for President Mnangagwa, it is unconstitutional! The constitution of Zimbabwe clearly states that to remove presidential term limits, you must have a referendum first. Even if that referendum happens and voters agree to the removal of term limits, the current President can’t benefit from such a move, it will be illegal. Only his successor can benefit. Sadly there is an illegal and unconstitutional precedent that was set, Chief Justice Luke Malaba is currently in his position illegally and unconstitutionally, they broke the constitution by giving him another term. The constitution was clear that the current Chief Justice couldn’t benefit from a change of the law, it would only benefit his successor. So be prepared for another constitutional violation, President Mnangagwa’s supporters have already pushing for a Third Term, and knowing Zimbabweans and Zimbabwe, he will get it the same way Malaba got back illegally and unconditionally!

Hopewell Chin’ono

124,017 views • 2 years ago

1:02

A court in Zimbabwe has ordered former finance minister Tendai Biti to surrender his passport and report to the police twice a week. Biti, who is leading opposition to planned constitutional amendments that would allow 83-year-old President Emmerson Mnangagwa to extend his rule and have the presidency elected by Parliament rather than the public, is also barred from convening or addressing public gatherings. Mnangagwa, who came to power after a popular military coup against Mugabe in 2017, has said he will step down when his second term ends in 2028. However, he has not publicly opposed his ruling ZANU-PF party’s push to extend his term. His Cabinet approved the amendment proposal in February before sending it to Parliament, where the ruling party holds a majority. The proposed changes would postpone elections to 2030, allow the president to be elected by Parliament instead of by popular vote and extend both the presidential term and those of members of Parliament from five to seven years. Police in recent months have banned meetings and arrested people for gathering to express opposition to the proposed changes to ‌the constitution. Source: The Associated Press. File footage: SABC News.

Kennedy Wandera

35,292 views • 4 months ago

0:51

IMEE ON DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT: ‘INE-EXPECT NA NAMIN’ WATCH: Senator Imee Marcos, an ally of Vice President Sara Duterte, says the minority bloc is already expecting the House to impeach Duterte. “Inaabangan na namin at palagay ko 106 votes madaling madaling makuha,” she says. Marcos says the minority has not discussed plans to oppose the convening of the impeachment court, but notes that Senator Robin Padilla has been “very vocal” about it. She adds that the minority bloc was supposed to meet today to discuss strategies and possible actions, stressing the need to prepare for a potential full-blown trial, but some members were not present. | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

34,498 views • 3 months ago

1:13

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

TheNewsHawks

16,579 views • 3 months ago

1:26

Napakagaling! Koko Pimentel praised for legal brilliance in Sara impeachment proceedings Senate Minority Leader Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III is heaping praises for his legal chops during the Senate impeachment proceedings. Pimentel, a Bar topnotcher, was one of the only five senators who stood their ground and opposed a Senate motion to return the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives. The outgoing senator argued there is no 'return to sender' concept in the impeachment proceedings. He was concerned that this was an apparent not-so-subtle attempt to bury the case. "Mabuhay ka, Senator Koko Pimentel! Bar topnotcher na, napakagaling na Minority Leader pa!" Senator Risa Hontiveros said in a Facebook post. Video courtesy: Senator Risa Hontiveros/Facebook

Politiko

122,866 views • 1 year ago

2:09

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

12,834 views • 3 months ago

2:36

’IS THIS RULE FOR SENATOR BATO WHO IS NOT HERE?’ WATCH: Tense exchanges in the Senate as minority senators oppose what they describe as the “railroading” of a proposed amendment to Senate rules that would “allow a senator, for justifiable reasons, to attend and participate in sessions through teleconference, video conference, or other reliable electronic means” — a motion introduced by Senator Rodante Marcoleta | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

262,364 views • 2 months ago

10:20

Sara Duterte requests P10 million budget to print and distribute a self-authored book for children A heated exchange broke out in the Philippine Senate after opposition Senator Risa Hontiveros (Akbayan) asked Vice President Sara Duterte what is the contents of the book for which the Office of the Vice President requested P10 million as part of its campaign to give 1 million school bags to impoverished school children. After Sen. Hontiveros said she will file a motion to have the requested budget of the OVP be instead given to other government agencies as part of streamlining overlapping public services, VP Sara Duterte proceeded to get defensive, accusing Sen. Hontiveros of politicizing the budget and going after her whilst reminded the lady senator that Davao City and the Dutertes helped elect Hontiveros to national office. Sen. Hontiveros replied by saying that only Duterte seems fixated on votes and China during the hearing, ending her statements with the words, "This is public funds and we are making inquiries. Budget hearing po ito. Di po lahat about you. Pera po ito ng taong-bayan"

Ivan 🇵🇭🇻🇦

1,835,676 views • 1 year ago

1:45

IMEE TO BBM: “WAG MONG KUNSINTIHIN ANG MGA PULITIKONG GINAGAMIT ANG SINUNGALING NA SI MADRIAGA” WATCH: Senator Imee Marcos denies claims made by alleged Duterte bagman Ramil Madriaga about a supposed term-sharing agreement between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte. She called on her brother, the president, to correct Madriaga’s statements, saying the testimony had nothing to do with the impeachment proceedings. Sen. Marcos also maintained she would remain impartial as a senator-judge in a possible impeachment trial, but added: “Ganyang klase bang mga testigo ang ihaharap sa Senado? Mahiya naman sila.” | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

68,287 views • 3 months ago

0:56

Former Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs Jacinto "Jing" Paras and political commentator Jeffrey "Ka Eric" Celiz led the crowd in calling for Vice President Sara Duterte to appear at Tuesday's rally. Paras and Celiz urged Duterte to remain "on standby," saying they were calling for a change in #leadership through constitutional means—not through violence, a coup, mutiny, or revolution. They argued that if President Ferdinand #Marcos Jr. were to resign in accordance with the Constitution, the Vice President should be prepared to assume the presidency. | Lisa Apacible #dailytribune

Daily Tribune

72,536 views • 1 month ago

Live Cam

Video Failed to Load

Giyu 🇵🇭

Anya Rossi• Live Now

0 Comments

Related Videos