Edited news graphic misrepresents ruling on Philippine VP impeachment
"Du30 are (sic) innocent. It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law," reads text written on an apparent news graphic shared July 26, 2025 on Facebook.
The post appears to attribute the remarks to Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen, whose picture is included in the image.
He penned the tribunal's July 25 ruling that blocked Duterte's trial, saying it violated a constitutional provision against multiple impeachment proceedings within a single year (archived link).
The House of Representatives impeached Duterte in February, charging the vice president with graft, corruption and an alleged assassination plot against one-time ally and former running mate President Ferdinand Marcos.
"They just can't accept that SARA DU30 is innocent, no stain of corruption," says the image's Tagalog-language caption, using a popular nickname for the vice president.
The top court's 13-0 ruling came just days before the Senate was to begin its new session, with the vice president's political future hanging in the balance (archived link).
Widely expected to run for president in 2028, a Senate trial conviction would have barred Duterte permanently from public office.
The claim -- earlier debunked by Rappler -- has also spread on TikTok, YouTube and Threads (archived link).
Several users appeared to have been misled.
"Yes Dutertes are innocent," one user commented. Another user said: "Good decision, Supreme Court. Thank God!"
But the posts share a manipulated news graphic and misrepresent the Supreme Court's decision on the case.
"Our ruling does not absolve petitioner Duterte from any of the charges. Any ruling on the charges against her can only be accomplished through another impeachment process, followed by a trial and conviction by the Senate," the court said in its decision published on its official website (archived link).
It added a new impeachment process can only be initiated against Duterte starting February 6, 2026.
A reverse image search on Google found the original graphic published on the Facebook page of local media News5 on July 25, 2025 (archived link). It does not include the quote, "Duterte are innocent".
Duterte's impeachment trial has triggered a flurry of false posts, many of them debunked by AFP here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Rep. Jasmine Crockett calls Trump a 'piece of s---' during liberal rally
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, did not hold back when sharing her opinion of President Donald Trump during a progressive rally on Sunday. The firebrand congresswoman from Texas urged the Democratic Party to get aggressive against the administration at the Phoenix stop of MoveOn's "Won't Back Down Tour," hitting Trump with the obscene description in the process. "Listen, Donald Trump is a piece of s---. OK, we know that," she said, as the crowd cheered her on. Crockett joined fellow Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Yassamin Ansari, for the rally held by the political advocacy group to inspire voters ahead of next year's midterm elections. Ahead of her slam on Trump, the congresswoman said she's confident that a Democratic candidate will win the 2028 presidential election, and laid out the strategy the party should have to secure that victory. "But what are we going to need to do then?" she asked. "For me, it's getting aggressive." "Now listen, I'm not gonna say that's what we gonna do, but I'm telling y'all what my vision gonna be," she continued, pointing to limiting the Supreme Court, which she called "corrupt." "We need to have some real guardrails around this Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has paved the way for half the stuff that we see that's going on." She then used the expletive against Trump but argued that it's Congress and the high court that need to be reined in because they're the institutions allowing him to implement his agenda. "But in a functioning democracy, he still would not be able to get away with this. But he's been able to get away with this because the House Republicans are complicit. He's been able to get away with this because Senate Republicans are complicit. But most importantly, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, is complicit." She added that the court has "no ethics guardrail," while lower courts do. "How much sense does that make when we know that they're taking money – we have the paper trail – and they refuse to put guardrails on themselves?" she asked. "And so, it's time for us to do it for 'em," Crockett declared. The left-wing lawmaker has frequently traded barbs with the president over the past few months. On her X account, Crockett has gone as far as to label Trump a "buffoon" and a "mofo," the abbreviated version of the word "mother----er." Trump has mocked the idea of Crockett being the future of the Democratic Party and called her "low IQ." The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Israel's government votes to fire country's attorney general
The Middle EastFacebookTweetLink Follow The Israeli government voted unanimously on Monday to fire the country's Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. Baharav-Miara has often been criticised by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who accused her of abusing her authority to undermine the government's policies and destabilize Israel's rule of law. Right-wing Israeli politicians have long called for her dismissal. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
What to know about Trump's court battle over tariffs
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump 's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
