Sara Duterte: ‘Give Malacañang floodwater to drink'
Duterte said that while on a personal trip at The Hague, Netherlands, she told her detained father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, about the current flooding situation in the Philippines.
'Napag-kwentuhan namin na taon-taon na lang na gano'n, pero wala talagang mga proyekto na nag-a-address sa baha. Ibig sabihin, inaantay na lang natin dumating 'yung bagyo at 'yung baha at maging biktima na naman tayo ulit ng baha taon taon,' she said in an interview on Monday.
(We've discussed the flooding situation in the country which happens every year, but no projects were being implemented to address the problem. This means that we're just waiting for the typhoon and the flood to come and we let ourselves become victims of floods every year.)
The Vice President was asked about the earlier suggestion of President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. to store floodwater and reuse it for agricultural purposes.
'Ipunin po natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para po may mainom siya,' she said.
(Let's collect it and deliver it to Malacañang so that he can drink it.)
'Ganoon na po ang gagawin natin—ipunin natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para meron silang mainom doon,' she added.
(That's what we'll do—we'll collect floodwater and then deliver it to Malacañang so that they have something to drink.)
During Marcos' visit to the Department of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD)-National Resource Operations Center last Friday, July 18, the President tried drinking water from the agency's family water filtration kit—which could be used in areas with limited access to clean water in times of disasters.
''Yung tinesting namin, 'yun 'yung balde na mayroong filter na kahit anong klaseng tubig, 'wag lang maalat, pero kahit na iba, basta fresh water, kahit hindi masyadong malinis, pwedeng ilagay sa balde, pwedeng inumin. Idadaan lang doon sa filter na 'yun,' Marcos said.
(We tested the basin that has a filter. Any kind of water—fresh water not salt water—even if it's not clean, you can put it in the basin and you can drink it. It just has to go through the filter.)
Dolomite beach
VP Sara also slammed the congressional inquiry into the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project that was proposed before the House of Representatives.
She was referring to House Resolution 56 filed by Bicol Saro party-list Representatve Terry Ridon, who said that the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), through its Chairman Don Artes, identified the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach Project as a direct contributor to the persistent flooding in the City of Manila.
'Hindi na ako magtataka kung lahat ng ginawa o lahat ng ginagawa ni dating pangulong Duterte ay imbestigahan ng administrasyon ngayon. At hindi na rin tayo magtataka kung lahat noong mga nangyayari ay sasabihin nila na kaparte 'yan ng war on drugs at kasalanan 'yan ni president Duterte,' she said.
(I'll not be surprised if everything that former president Duterte did or is doing will be investigated by the current administration. I will also not be surprised if they say that everything that is happening now is connected to the war on drugs and was the fault of former president Duterte.)
She also dismissed the move as merely 'political scapegoating.'
'Ibig sabihin, ayaw nila tanggapin 'yung obligasyon, ayaw nila ibigay 'yung accountability sa mga problema. Tulad ng pagbaha, dapat kasi ang sasabihin mo niyan ay ano ba ang dahilan kung bakit nagbabaha? Ano ba ang plano natin para sa susunod na bagyo ay hindi na babaha? At paano ba natin i-implement 'yung plano natin na paniguraduhin natin na hindi na nasa-stranded o hindi na nabibiktima ng pagbaha 'yung mga tao? Ganon dapat ang sagot ng gobyerno. Hindi 'yung magtuturo sila ng ibang tao kasi nililihis nila 'yung attention ng tao sa totoong problema,' she continued.
(This means that they don't want to accept their obligation and give accountability for the problems. When it comes to flooding, they should be asking what is the reason for such and how can we plan for it? How do we implement our plan to ensure that people will no longer be stranded or become victims of flooding? That's what the government should answer. They don't need to pinpoint because they only divert people's attention to the real problem.)
SONA 2025
Further, Duterte maintained that she has no obligation to listen to the fourth State of the Nation Address of Marcos on July 28.
This, as House spokesperson Princess Abante said that the lower chamber remains open to all government officials for the SONA, including the Vice President. The House official had emphasized the importance of Duterte's role in witnessing the President's annual report before the Congress and the Filipinos.
'Wala tayong batas na nagsasabi na tungkulin ng mga Pilipino ang makinig sa Presidente. Ang nasa batas natin nakalagay, tungkulin ng Presidente ang magbigay sa ating mga Pilipino kung ano 'yung estado ng ating bansa. Siya 'yung may tungkulin, tayo walang tungkulin makinig,' Duterte said.
(We have no law that says that Filipinos are mandated to listen to the President. The law states that it is the duty of the President to deliver to Filipinos what the state of our country is. He is the one who has the duty, we have no duty to listen to him.)
'We have the right to listen or to not listen. There is no law mandating us to listen to the President give his State of the Nation Address,' she added.
The Vice President previously said that she has no intention of attending Marcos' fourth SONA. Last year, she also skipped the presidential speech.
2028 plans
Sara Duterte also disclosed that her father Rodrigo has signified his support for her should she decide to run for presidency in the 2028 elections.
'Sabi niya, kung gusto mong tumakbo, tumakbo ka…Sabi niya, ako ang pinakaunang mag-contribute at tumulong sa iyo. Sabi niya, sana lang ay nasa labas na ako sa kampanya kasi gusto kong mangampanya. Pero sabi niya, 'pag sinabi mo sa akin na tatakbo ka…ako 'yung unang tutulong,' she said, recalling her conversation with her father during her visit.
(He told me that if I want to run, then I should run...He said that he'll be the first to contribute and help me. He just wished that he'll already be released once the campaign begins because he wants to campaign for me. But he told me that if I'm going to run, then he'll be the first to help.)
The Duterte patriarch was arrested in the Philippines by local authorities on March 11, based on a warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court.
He is currently detained in the Scheveningen Prison in The Hague for charges of crimes against humanity for the extrajudicial killings during the drug war. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider VP Sara Duterte impeachment ruling
Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita 'Ging' Deles, Yvonne Jereza of Magdalo Partylist, and Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudia, convenor of Tindig Pilipinas, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on Friday, August 1, 2025, on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. Photo by Danny Pata Some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam. 'Naniniwala po kami na maling-mali ang naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema (we believe that the reasons of the SC is very wrong),' petitioners Sylvia Estrada Claudio said in an ambush interview. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. However, Claudio said their complaint was not initiated. This was echoed by petitioner Teresita Quintos Deles, who said that the SC previously ruled that complaints are only initiated once deferred to the House Committee on Justice. 'By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case na sinabi na ang initiation ay kapag na defer lang sa Justice committee. Since hindi iyon nangyari, wala talagang prior initiation,' she said. (By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case where it was stated that initiation happens when it is merely deferred in the Justice committee. Since that did not happen, there was really no prior initiation.) The other petitioners are Akbayan Representative Percival Cendaña, Eugene Gonzales, Yvonne Jereza, Alicia Murphy, and Filomena Cinco. Claudio called on the Senate to continue the impeachment trial. 'Naniniwala din po kami na nag overstep ng kaunti ang ating SC dahil nag simula na ang Senado. At sa amin hong pananaw ay malinaw naman ho sa Konstitusyon na ang Senado ang may karapatan, at nag simula na po sila,' she said. (We also believe that our SC overstepped a bit because the Senate had already started. And in our view, it is clear in the Constitution that the Senate has the right, and they had already begun.) 'Sa atin pong mamamayan, nananawagan po kami na pwede naman pong i-criticize ang opinyon ng kahit sinong mataas na opisyal o institusyon, kasama na po ang SC,' she added. (To our fellow citizens, we are calling on you that it is okay to criticize the opinion of any high-ranking official or institution, including the SC.) — BAP, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
20 hours ago
- GMA Network
Jinggoy: At least 19 senators to abide by SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said 19 to 20 senators are likely to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. "Karamihan ng sentimyento ng kapwa senador ko (The sentiment of most of my fellow senators) is to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," Estrada said, noting that the matter was discussed during the senators' caucus on Tuesday. "Unang-una sa body language, pangalawa sa salita nila, mahahalata mo naman kung sino eh," he added. (One can discern where they stand based on their body language and their words.) Voting 13-0-2, the SC last week declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero earlier shared his personal opinion on the matter, saying that the SC decision must be followed "otherwise, [there] will have a constitutional crisis, and our neighboring countries and other people might view us as a banana republic where we only follow what we want." Estrada echoed this, saying that the Senate is "going to flirt for a constitutional crisis" if the SC ruling is not followed. He also pointed out that the decision is immediately executory even though a motion for reconsideration (MR) may still be filed. "No more [trial] because ang sabi ng Supreme Court, ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction dahil unconstitutional ang finile ng House of Representatives. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because we don't have the jurisdiction," the Senate President Pro Tempore explained. (There's no more trial because based on the decision of the Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction because what the House of Representatives filed was unconstitutional. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because of that.) While he was open to hearing arguments on the matter, Estrada said his decision will not change. "Hindi because I will abide with the decision of the Supreme Court. Kahit na maganda ang kanilang dahilan, ultimately ang Supreme Court ang masusunod hindi naman sila. Unless 'pag na-file ang House ng MR at ma-reverse, we will abide with the ruling," he added. (No, because I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if others have good reasons not to do the same, the Supreme Court has the final say, not them. Unless the House files a motion for reconsideration and the decision is reversed, we will abide by the ruling.) The Senate is set to discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, according to Escudero. Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan earlier said he has been in talks with senators since Monday about signing a resolution he drafted with Senators Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino on how they can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial despite the SC decision. Hontiveros also said a total of four senators, including herself, have signed the resolution so far, with the hope that they will gain the support of others. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
