SARA DUTERTE’S LAWYERS WANT THE COURT TO HOLD OFF ON A POSSIBLE ARREST WARRANT

Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte have asked a Quezon City court not to issue an arrest warrant while it considers their motion to dismiss the grave-threats case against her.

The Department of Justice filed the case on August 11 over Duterte’s November 2024 remarks involving President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Duterte’s lawyers are questioning whether the court has authority to hear the case. They have also requested oral arguments, saying the legal questions could have consequences beyond the Vice President’s case.

This does not mean that an arrest warrant has already been issued. It also does not mean that the court has agreed to dismiss the charge. The defense is asking the judge to settle its objections before deciding whether Duterte should be ordered to appear and answer the case.

For an ordinary citizen, this is an important part of due process. A person accused of a crime may challenge the charge and the court’s authority. But filing that challenge does not automatically stop the judge from acting. The court must decide whether the defense’s arguments are strong enough to delay or end the case.

THE DOCUMENTS ORDERED BY THE IMPEACHMENT COURT HAVE NOW BEEN SUBMITTED

The Senate impeachment court says the banks and government agencies covered by its subpoenas have completed the submission of the required documents.

The records came from subpoenaed banks, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Two banks that had requested additional time submitted their remaining documents on August 13. The institutions also supplied certified copies required by a later court order.

The documents were requested in connection with the impeachment article accusing Vice President Duterte of amassing unexplained wealth and failing to make complete disclosures about her assets.

Their submission does not prove that Duterte committed wrongdoing. Bank transactions can be legitimate, and the existence of a transaction report is not the same as evidence of a crime. The prosecution must still show how individual records support its allegations. The defense must be allowed to question the records, their interpretation, and the witnesses presenting them.

For the public, the important point is that the case is moving from broad accusations toward documents that can be examined. The value of those records will depend on whether the prosecution can explain them clearly and connect them to a specific charge.

COA TESTIMONY RAISES NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ACTIVITIES LISTED IN CONFIDENTIAL-FUND REPORTS

Commission on Audit auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo testified that reports submitted by the Office of the Vice President included activities such as tree planting, Christmas events, gift-giving, wheelchair distribution, and an appreciation night in explaining the use of confidential funds for rewards.

According to her testimony, the reports did not meet the requirements of Joint Circular No. 2015-01, which governs the release, use, reporting, and auditing of confidential and intelligence funds.

The issue is not whether tree planting, gift-giving, or wheelchair distribution can help people. They can. The question is why they appeared in reports supporting the use of money reserved for confidential operations.

Ordinary government programs are normally charged to regular public funds, where expenses and recipients can be documented in the usual way. Confidential funds are treated differently because some details may need to remain secret. That secrecy is why the rules governing them are supposed to be stricter.

The testimony is part of the prosecution’s evidence. It is not yet a final finding by the impeachment court. The defense may challenge the auditor’s interpretation, present other documents, or argue that the activities were connected to legitimate confidential operations.

For taxpayers, the basic question is simple: Was public money charged to the correct fund, used for an authorized purpose, and supported by records strong enough to survive an audit?

ENERGY TALKS WITH CHINA ARE MOVING, BUT THERE IS NO JOINT EXPLORATION DEAL YET

President Marcos says the Philippines is making progress in discussions with China about possible joint oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea.

The two countries began renewed exploratory discussions earlier this year. The Philippines needs additional domestic energy sources, while potentially valuable oil and natural-gas deposits lie beneath waters affected by overlapping maritime claims.

No final exploration agreement has been announced.

Any agreement must comply with the Constitution, which places the exploration and use of Philippine natural resources under the full control and supervision of the Philippine government. This is not a minor technical requirement. The Supreme Court previously invalidated a separate exploration arrangement involving China and Vietnam because it failed to satisfy constitutional safeguards.

For households, the attraction is easy to understand. New domestic gas supplies could reduce dependence on imported fuel and help protect the country from disruptions abroad. But exploration takes years, costs heavily, and does not guarantee that commercially usable reserves will be found. It will not produce an immediate reduction in electricity or fuel prices.

There is also a national-security concern. An agreement must not weaken the Philippines’ maritime position or allow cooperation to be presented as recognition of China’s sweeping claims.

AUGUST 21 IS A SPECIAL NON-WORKING DAY. HERE IS WHAT THAT MEANS FOR PAY

Ninoy Aquino Day falls on Friday, August 21. It is listed as a special non-working day under the government’s official 2026 holiday proclamation.

For many employees in the private sector, a special non-working day follows the “no work, no pay” rule. An employee who does not work may receive no pay for that day unless the company has a more favorable policy, established practice, or collective bargaining agreement.

An employee required to work during the special day should generally receive 130 percent of the basic daily wage for the first eight hours.

If the special day also falls on the employee’s scheduled rest day and the employee works, the applicable rate is generally 150 percent of the basic daily wage for the first eight hours. Separate computations apply to overtime.

Salaried workers should not assume that their monthly salary will automatically be reduced. Monthly pay arrangements and company policies may already account for holidays. Anyone unsure of the correct computation should ask payroll or human resources before Friday and keep a copy of the work schedule.