Rep. Martin Romualdez reelected as House Speaker in 20th Congress
Romualdez secured his second consecutive term as Speaker with an overwhelming 269 votes. His nomination was backed by several major political blocs, including:
•Party-list Coalition, represented by TUCP Rep. Raymond Democrito Mendoza •Lakas-CMD, represented by Quezon Rep. Jayjay Suarez •Nationalist People's Coalition, represented by Quezon Rep. Mark Enverga •Nacionalista Party, represented by Misamis Oriental Rep. Yevgeny Emano •National Unity Party, represented by Antipolo Rep. Ronaldo Puno
•Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, represented by Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand Alexander Marcos
In his nominating speech, Rep. Suarez praised Romualdez's performance during the 19th Congress, describing him as a results-oriented leader who embodies 'dignified, decisive, and compassionate leadership.'
He emphasized that Romualdez worked not for the spotlight but for meaningful outcomes, leading one of the most productive legislative terms in recent years and pushing key measures aligned with the administration's Bagong Pilipinas agenda.
Romualdez ran unopposed, and no other lawmaker was nominated for the speakership.
Ahead of the vote, 291 House members signed a manifesto of support for Romualdez's reelection, including Pampanga Rep. and former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and 4Ps Party-list Rep. Marcelino Libanan, who served as the House Minority Leader in the previous Congress.
Lawmakers who did not vote for Romualdez are expected to elect their minority leader in a separate proceeding.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Filipino Times
an hour ago
- Filipino Times
VP Sara Duterte says Philippines ‘deserves better' after SC voids impeachment
Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday said the country 'deserves better' leaders, following the Supreme Court's unanimous decision declaring the impeachment complaint against her as unconstitutional. 'Our country deserves better, and we shall stand tall, strong, and resilient against leaders whose greed will bring down our homeland. We deserve better,' Duterte said in a statement. The high court voted 13-0 to void the Articles of Impeachment filed against the Vice President, ruling that they violated the one-year bar on multiple impeachment attempts under Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The court also found that her right to due process was violated. Duterte thanked her legal team for defending her 'even when no one else was willing to stand by [her].' She also expressed gratitude to the petitioners who challenged the impeachment, and to those who supported her amid the controversy. 'To those whose voices rang out in dissent against persecution — thank you. Your courage to speak the truth has been a source of strength,' she said. 'And to the parents, children, and silent supporters who offered their prayers for justice — thank you. Your quiet faith lifts me up.' The Supreme Court clarified that its decision does not clear Duterte of the charges against her, but noted that any new impeachment complaint may only be filed after February 6, 2026. The ruling is immediately executory, but the House of Representatives is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration, saying the decision was based on what it described as inaccurate findings that contradict official records. Meanwhile, Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said the Senate will take up the Supreme Court ruling in a session scheduled for August 6.
Khaleej Times
17 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
India PM Narendra Modi denies third party brokered peace with Pakistan
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on July 29 denied that any world leader pushed India to stop fighting Pakistan during their recent conflict, after repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he had brokered peace. The South Asian rivals fought an intense four-day conflict in May that left more than 70 people dead on both sides before Trump announced a ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbours. "No world leader asked us to stop the operation," Modi told parliament during a debate on "Operation Sindoor", the military campaign launched against Pakistan in May. Modi did not name Trump in his speech. The Indian prime minister also claimed that it was Pakistan that pleaded with India to stop fighting after feeling the "heat of our attacks". The conflict was sparked by an April attack on tourists by gunmen in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 men dead, mostly Hindus. India accused Pakistan of backing the attackers, a charge Islamabad denied. Trump has claimed numerous times that he brokered peace between the rivals, including most recently on July 28. "If I weren't around, you'd have, right now, six major wars going on. India would be fighting with Pakistan," Trump said during his visit to Scotland. Modi's assertion came after Rahul Gandhi from the opposition Congress party challenged the premier to say "inside the parliament that Donald Trump is lying". Earlier Tuesday, home minister Amit Shah told lawmakers that three Pakistani gunmen involved in the attack in Indian-administered Kashmir were killed during a military operation on Monday. Shah told parliament that all three were Pakistani nationals and identified two of them as members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a UN-designated terrorist group based in Pakistan. Muslim-majority Kashmir has been divided between India and Pakistan since their independence from British rule in 1947, and the neighbours — who both claim the region in full — have fought two wars and several conflicts over its control. The fighting in May brought the rivals close to another war, but Trump announced a ceasefire between them before the two countries did. Soon, opposition parties in India started raising questions about third-party mediation between the foes, a claim New Delhi has always denied.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Republicans missed a shot at serious Medicaid reform
Every decade since the 1970s, Congress has tried and failed to reform Medicaid, the health entitlement for the poor. Republican lawmakers' latest effort — as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — appears to be no different. Instead of addressing the program's core deficiencies, the party instead fixated on shrinking it. The likely result? Needless disruption and little in the way of serious savings or reform. All told, the bill seeks to cut about $1 trillion from federal Medicaid spending over a decade. This savings largely would be achieved through a series of technical changes that nonetheless would be costly and difficult to implement, and thus may not fully materialise, according to the Tribune News Service. The most substantial amount in theory would come from adding 'work requirements' for beneficiaries. Starting next December, Medicaid recipients under age 65 will need to work, seek employment, go to school or volunteer 80 hours a month, with exemptions for pregnant women, parents with children under 14, the 'medically frail' and others. The goal is to save money by shrinking the pool of enrollees — without cutting benefits for those still eligible or dramatically increasing the uninsured rate. Accomplishing such a delicate task is, you might say, aspirational. States will need to update creaky IT systems and retrain staff. They'll have to coordinate with the managed-care companies that administer Medicaid plans and communicate changes to a population that's known to move and change jobs frequently. To show they're working in good faith and not simply snatching benefits from the poor, officials ought to establish pathways to vocational and other programs that put recipients in compliance with the new rules. They likewise should work with local employers to help those who've lost coverage find alternatives. Preparation of this sort is improbable, and not just because it's laborious. Thanks to Medicaid's funding model, most states have little incentive to strictly comply with work requirements. Since its inception in 1965, Medicaid has offered a federal 'match' for state spending on public aid, without a cap. For each dollar a state spends, it gets $1 to $9 from the federal government. By enforcing work rules — and thus lowering their Medicaid spending — states stand to cut off their biggest source of funding, at the risk of yanking away their residents' health care. Far better to create workarounds. For these reasons, work requirements are unlikely to generate hoped-for savings. They'll also hassle the poor while failing to address the perverse incentives of the open-ended federal match that has made Medicaid one of the fastest-growing federal programs, with expenditures soaring to more than $800 billion from about $40 billion in 1985. Proposals that seek to eliminate the open-ended match have long been debated but remain unpopular. So-called block grants, for example, would allocate a fixed amount of money to states each year. Although that would curb runaway spending, it would be perilously inflexible in times of need — say, when enrollment rises during recessions, disease outbreaks or natural disasters. One idea that deserves more attention is something of a hybrid. It involves maintaining the uncapped federal match for mandatory benefits and eligibility categories — that is, the core services and populations required by federal law — while setting limits on matching for states' optional expansions. A split along these lines would make states, rather than federal taxpayers, responsible for spending they choose to incur. The good news is that the One Big Beautiful Bill has started a long-overdue conversation on Medicaid reform. The bad news is that, as things stand, the cuts the law has imposed are likely to result in disruptive yet ineffective change. Congress still has a chance to do the right thing.
