Impeach bulagâ … China connection?

Nakakaligalig naman talaga ang alleged China konekt ni VP Sara, and Atty. Joel Ruiz Butuyan is right: We must give full attention to evidence that will be presented in the coming days, given testimony and documents showing that P319 million deposited in her husband’s company, Cale88 Foods Corp., came from China and Hong Kong. Sana totoo ang say ng mga DDS na wala itong kinalaman sa Chinese government o na hindi ito pahiwatig ng pagkiling ng mga Duterte sa China sa isyung West Philippine Sea. Diin pa ng DDS vloggers, bakit okay lang ang pagkiling ng Marcos government sa Amerika, na may access sa siyam (9) na EDCA bases?

Totoo naman na the ideal is for the Philippines as a sovereign country to deal even-handedly with both the U.S. and China, but China makes it really difficult. Sabi nga ni Florin Hilbay sa Facebook: China has inflicted damage to the livelihood of Filipino fishermen, destroyed large areas of the marine environment in the WPS, casually and repeatedly harassed our own navy, and continues to disrespect the 2016 arbitral award in our favor. That harm is direct—it affects our national security, economy, sovereignty, and dignity as Filipinos. 

CRESCENDO OF EVIDENCE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
Joel Ruiz Butuyan

From the kind of evidence the prosecution has started presenting this week, the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte is entering a very interesting stage. It clearly appears that the evidence being presented is reaching its crescendo, and the prosecution is aiming to end on a high note.

In a case that has enormous political impact, in addition to its judicial objective, it makes a lot of sense for the prosecution to curate the presentation of its evidence. The prosecution has struggled to capture the electorate’s attention since the impeachment trial started on July 6, 2026. In fact, public viewership of the trial waned from the beginning until recently. It’s not hard to understand why.

First, the series of evidence presented by the prosecution for the three-month period from July to September was evidence that was either already long known to, or already expected without any surprise by the public. These include the public threats to kill issued by VP Sara against the President, the first lady, and the then Speaker of the House of Representatives; the respondent’s misuse of outrageous amounts of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education; and evidence of real estate, firearms, and business interests of VP Sara.

The second reason why the public was bored into inattention is because the proceedings were dominated by squabbling on technicalities between the parties’ lawyers and the grandstanding monologues of senator-judges. The members of the public who have full-time day jobs refuse to sit through hours of bickering on what are frivolous issues to the common people.

The kinds of evidence that are coming out this week are expected to generate strong interest and intense attention from the public, however. The pieces of evidence that are emerging are the sort of documents and monetary numbers that are kept in highly secured vaults or protected with thick layers of concealment. It is not only the amounts of money involved that are catching people’s attention, but the nature and sources of those funds.

So far this week, prosecution evidence shows 666 covered transaction reports and 55 suspicious transaction reports involving VP Sara and her husband totaling an eye-popping amount of P4.4 billion. Evidence has also been introduced showing that inward financial transactions totaling P319 million were deposited in a company called Cale88 Foods Corp., owned by VP Sara’s husband. Evidence has likewise been presented showing that the joint accounts of VP Sara and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, recorded P194 million in transactions in a single day on March 28, 2014.

VP Sara has a lot of explaining to do as to why those humongous amounts were not reflected in her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth. The late Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona was convicted in his impeachment trial for his nondisclosure of his bank deposits amounting to $2.4 million and P80.7 million, which are far smaller compared to the amounts associated with VP Sara.

But what is most disturbing from the recent revelations is not only how huge the amounts are because we’ve been numbed by the numbers involved in corruption scandals involving our public officials. There is testimony presented that some of those amounts came from a suspected drug lord, a certain Samuel Uy. Other amounts received by VP Sara or her husband are allegedly connected with graft and corrupt practices related to the Department of Public Works and Highways’ flood control issue. Still other amounts are allegedly connected with shabu importation. Lastly, there is testimony and there are documents allegedly showing that the P319 million deposited in VP Sara’s husband’s company, Cale88 Foods Corp., came from China and Hong Kong. In the succeeding hearing dates, we expect the prosecution to present more evidence to substantiate these predicate pieces of evidence.

Filipinos must give full attention to the evidence that will be presented in the coming days because we may be witnessing damning evidence that the second highest official of our country has committed traitorous acts by receiving illegal funds from the one country that has usurped our maritime waters, harassed our fisherfolk, and assaulted our security forces. In all past impeachment and criminal complaints against our public officials, they have been confined to cases of corruption. Receiving bribe money from a foreign country that treats us as an enemy is an unparalleled crime against our country and our people.

In the words of Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesperson Jay Tarriela, “[c]orruption may rob the nation of its wealth, but treason robs it of its soul.”

 

Macho vibes

I saw it coming, of course, that Atty. Bel Zamora would be belittled and bashed, though I didn’t expect it from a senator-judge. Totoong nababalot sa language problem natin, na ubod ng macho, ang patuloy na mababang pagtingin sa kababaihan. Like women were only for flirting or making ligaw, everything is sex-related, even when they are just doing their jobs.

BEYOND THE ‘CONYO’ ACCENT: Class, Language, and the Sexualization of Public Speech
by Atty @James D. Lansang

When Quezon City Rep. Ysabel Zamora questioned a witness during recent House impeachment proceedings, much of the online reaction bypassed the legal relevance of the testimony. Instead, social media comment sections fixated on her speech pattern—specifically her soft, English-dominant cadence and her distinct pronunciation of Tagalog words like baril.

While public commentary quickly devolved into accusations of flirtation, “bedroom voices,” and sexualized humor, the phenomenon points to two deeper, intersecting issues in modern Philippine public discourse: the social baggage attached to the “conyo” speech register, and the troubling tendency to sexualize women when their public performance escapes familiar categories.

As commentator Paul S. Galutera (known online as Morning Coffee Thoughts) observed, what many labeled as an attempt at seduction was simply a familiar linguistic profile. For decades, sociolinguists have noted that conyo is not merely an accent; it is a recognized speech register historically tied to urban, private-school-educated, or upper-middle-class environments.

Public perception in the Philippines remains deeply sensitive to how authority figures speak. Years ago, in an essay later included in my recent book ”I Was Hungry and… You Formed a Committee?” I examined our long-standing struggle to establish a “standard Filipino English”—a form of clear, professional English accessible across regions and social classes without requiring citizens to mimic foreign accents or slip into disjointed “Taglish.” Neighboring Singapore has since evidently developed its own “Singlish,” a distinct local variety they seem entirely comfortable with, but our own path with English and Taglish remains far more conflicted.

The premise of developing a standard variety was straightforward: language should serve as a functional bridge for civic life, legal proceedings, and broad international understanding, rather than a marker of social division.

Instead, Philippine speech has continued to fracture along class and cultural lines. On one end is the derision faced by those who speak with regional accents; on the other is the instant suspicion directed at those who speak with elite conyo inflections. In politics, sounding “too English” or “too elite” can draw immediate public detachment.

However, the reaction to Zamora went beyond routine anti-elitist ribbing. Critique of her courtroom strategy or delivery quickly morphed into explicit gendered commentary. As research on online misogyny in Philippine politics continuously highlights, converting a female official’s professional presence into sexualized jokes diminishes her perceived legitimacy as a public actor.

The double standard becomes stark when contrasted with actual instances of inappropriate behavior in legislative halls. When male lawmakers have openly introduced explicit or suggestive remarks into official records, the reactions have often been treated as mere lapses in decorum or brushed off as humor. Yet when a female prosecutor simply delivers testimony in her natural, lifelong speaking voice, observers manage to project sexual intent onto her vocabulary.

Critiquing a lawmaker’s preparation, line of questioning, or political stance is fair game in a democracy. Even expressing distaste for a particular accent falls within ordinary public commentary. But when public assessment shifts from evaluating evidence to speculating on a speaker’s private motives or anatomy, the debate ceases to be about governance.

Our public sphere would benefit from greater discipline on two fronts: a more conscious effort to foster a clear, professional Standard Filipino English that unites rather than alienates, and a firm refusal to let gendered tropes replace substantive public critique.

jeemsdee@yahoo.com

Eugenia Duran Apostol (1925-2026)

—————————

Only in 2012, with the release of Juan Ponce Enrile’s Memoir, did we realize that  it wasn’t just good luck or privilege but extraordinary strength and courage that saw Eugenia aka Eggie through those dark times, standing up not just to Marcos but to his defense minister as well.

—————————————–

In the pantheon of EDSA warriors 1983 to 1986, Eggie Apostol stands next only to Ninoy, Cory, and Butz for her fearless fight “to quench the public thirst for information on the murderous weight of martial law” and her passionate opposition to press censorship that saw Ninoy’s shocking assassination on Aug 21, and 10 days later the awesome funeral procession, barely covered or reported by Marcos media. Two days later, she dared turn the weekly lifestyle mag Mr. & Ms. into black-and-white Special Editions to fearlessly chronicle those troubled times and document the anger of the people.

The first issue with Ninoy’s bloody face on the cover sold 750,000 copies which settled down to 300,000 to 400,000 weekly over the next 70 weeks or so to the end of November 1984.  Eggie ran stories of the Ninoy-Galman double murder, and events and revelations unfolding thereafter, from the street protests, the human rights violations, the hidden wealth, and the Agrava Fact-Finding Board hearings, especially the Majority Report, released in November 1984, that the double murder was the outcome of a military conspiracy involving Ver and 25 others, and NOT the doing of Galman, the alleged communist hit man.

By Feb 1985, when the Sandiganbayan Trial of Ver et al. began, Eggie had quickly shifted to newspaper mode with the Philippine Weekly Inquirer, tabloid size, to chronicle what turned out to be a mock trial. TV cameras labelled “Office of the President of the Philippines” beamed court proceedings to the Palace from where Marcos stage-managed and directed outcomes and decisions, most crucially the exclusion of all evidence surfaced by the Agrava Board. G.R. No. 72670

The rest is history, so to speak. In Dec 2 1985 the Sandiganbayan acquitted Ver et al., the next day Cory announced she would run in snap elections, and a week later, Dec 9, Eggie went broadsheet with the Philippine Daily Inquirer‘s first issue — the banner story: “It’s Cory-Doy”. In less than three months, Marcos was gone, martial law was over. The “mosquito press” that Marcos dismissed as minor irritant had turned out to be lethal.

But Eggie wasn’t done. In 1996, ten years after EDSA, she founded the Foundation for Worldwide People Power (FWPP) and published my Chronology of a Revolution 1986, coffee table, and in 2000, the updated essay version in Tagalog, Himagsikan sa EDSA–Walang Himala, cheap newsprint, that was serialized in her pop-up tabloid Pinoy Times (1999) in the run-up to Edsa Dos and the ouster of Erap.

In August 2006 she was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism, Literature & Creative Communication Arts in recognition of “her courageous example in placing the truth-telling press at the center of the struggle for democratic rights and better government in the Philippines.” In November of the same year, she was hailed byTime Magazine as one of its “Asian Heroes” of the past 60 years.

Eugenia “Eggie” Duran Apostol never tires of saying that she was just lucky “to be at the right place at the right time,” with “the knack for starting small things that end up doing big things.” [Butch Hernandez, FWPP]

Only in 2012, with the release of Juan Ponce Enrile‘s Memoir, did we realize that  it wasn’t just good luck or privilege but extraordinary strength and courage that saw Eggie through those challenging times, battling not just Marcos but his defense minister, too.

Enrile’s JAKA Investments Corp. was part owner pala of Mr. & Ms. — pre-1983 the Enriles and Apostols danced and dined around in the same alta sociedad circles; Eggie’s husband Peping Apostol, project engineer, was a favored builder of the Ponce-Enriles — and when the Special Editions came out, Enrile kept his investment in Mr. & Ms. secret (he was in enough trouble with Marcos?).

Juan Ponce Enrile had surprisingly kept his hands off. To avoid scrutiny, his shares had been “warehoused” under Eggie’s name — a “gentleman’s agreement.” https://insiderph.com/

But the 1985 shift to the Inquirer broadsheet came back to bite Eggie. In ’89 JAKA filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accusing her of allegedly diverting Mr. & Ms. corporate funds to set up the Daily Inquirer and complaining of irregularities that she allegedly committed from ’83 to ’87.

In the 1990s the Philippine Daily Inquirer underwent a struggle for power – between Apostol and her managers. Apostol severed all corporate and editorial ties with the Philippine Daily Inquirer on January 26, 1994, resigning from the board and retiring from the paper. She is said to have seen the battle for corporate control to be detrimental to the paper’s growth. [Mojares, Resil. “Biography: Eugenia D. Apostol”]

The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint In August 1995, which dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in July 1998. [G.R. No. 72670] But Enrile wasn’t done with Eggie. In the 2012 Memoir, he painted her as an opportunistic social climber (imagine!) who curried his favor during martial law to protect and advance her own business interests. Projecting much? It was he who was super fortunate to have Eggie and the mosquito press on his side when he defected from Marcos with FVR and RAM in Feb 86.

The Memoir was “a serious attempt to revise the history of the dictatorship and the libertarian people power movement that followed it,” said Inquirer columnist Amando Doronila. And of course Enrile took exception to my Chronology that editor Nelson Navarro tagged a product of “the official yellow school of history” which cast Enrile in a most “unfavorable light.” https://opinion.inquirer.net/37782/enriles-memoir-story-of-sorcerers-apprentice

ENRILE: Because I was imvolved in politics, the systematic vilification against me was easy to understand and to even forgive. But the disservice done to me was nothing compared to the equally systemic attempt to minimize, if not totally eradicate from the annals of history, the role of the courageous and patriotic soldiers of the land who dared and who were willing and ready to sacrifice their families, their blood and their lives to free the people from a regime that had long lost its moral right to govern. It is something unpardonable and something that I have detested all these years. It showed me the callousness, perfidy and ingratitude of those who benefitted most from the 1986 Edsa Revolution. [page 654]

One realizes now that Enrile’s take down of my EDSA history must have also been about his long-drawn-out battles with Eggie. That he got it all wrong is just consistent as well with that history.

There was no attempt to minimize the role of the rebel military. I tell it as it happened, based on published sources and first-hand accounts: The reformists broke away and the people marched to EDSA to shield them from the dictator. And we continue to celebrate that Day of the Defection as the beginning of the four days of EDSA.

what i do say is that if enrile and ramos had not defected, people power would have happened anyway.  feb 22 was the 7th day of the crony boycott, the economy was reeling, the people were in the throes of nonviolent revolution, marcos’s inauguration would have brought them to the streets anyway, straight to mendiola, most likely, there to face tanks and marines just as bravely and stunningly. https://stuartsantiago.com/resetting-the-record-straight-edsa/

It also bears repeating, clarifying, that Eggie did not commission me to write Chronology or Himagsikan. Both were purely private efforts at telling, and thinking on, how the four days unfolded, what was that all about. By the time Eggie heard of my work and asked to see it, I had already snagged interviews with FVR and Ming, Almonte and Razon, atbp. (for a 1991 FVR project na hindi natuloy). The Cory interview was arranged by Eggie; she sent word to Enrile, too, but he wanted editing privileges.

Eggie was every writer’s dream publisher who did not in any way attempt to influence or edit my reading of, and writing on, the four days’ events, except to send me her folder of news clippings and some foreign titles to flesh out my timeline. And oh yes, she got me that wonderful foreword from Nick Joaquin, cover by Brenda Fajardo, book design by Lynett Villariba. And for Himagsikan, Nonoy Marcelo, no less.

Eggie was 86 when Enrile’s Memoir came out, and the story is, she must have found it very interesting.,,,

…. because she stayed up all night reading it. By the time she was finished with all 750 pages, it was already 5 a.m. As she turned the last page, she closed her eyes…and laughed. https://opinion.inquirer.net/39544/and-then-she-laughed

Katawá-tawá naman talaga na the obfuscating hadn’t stopped, and that he was still so very angry with Eggie for standing up to the machos of martial law. What a life well-lived!

Taos-pusong pasasalamat, Eggie, and happy new trails!

***

Original manuscripts online
Chronology of a Revolution https://www.edsarevolution.com/chronology/
Foreword by Nick Joaquin https://www.edsarevolution.com/chronology/foreword.php
Himagsikan sa EDSA–Walang Himala! https://www.stuartxchange.org/Edsa.html 
Panimula https://www.stuartxchange.org/Panimula.html

The Senate on Trial

After hearing from Amici Curiae in the Senate Impeachment Court, my first reaction was, bakit puro lalaki?  Dahil walang former Chief Justice na babae? Pero Associate Justice din lang yung isa, kahit pa kasali siya sa nag-frame ng 1987 Constitution. Wala bang former AJ na babae na qualified to weigh in, just in case may naiibang pananaw o angle o retorika?

Not that the men disappointed. Adequately explained naman ang two sides of the argument: yung 16 as immutable or fixed threshold (AJ Adolf Azcuna) VS. yung adjustable 2/3 of the members in attendance (CJs Hilario Davide, Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno). Ibig sabihin: 16 votes needed to impeach — kung 2/3 of 24 senators; 14 votes needed — kung 2/3 of 20, absent Estrada and Marcoleta, Bato and Loren).

BALL’S IN YOUR COURT, SENATE….
My major major take-away is that  the ex-CJ Supremes were unanimous on: the Senate Court’s “sole” power  to interpret and to promulgate rules relating to the Impeachment. Ibig sabihin, the Senators will have to resolve the issues by their collegial lonesomes. Hindi maaasahan, as of the moment, ang Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. Unless, of course, the Supremes of today deem otherwise?

Siyempre the DDS bloc (7 of 11 show up intermittently) deeply wish to abide by the fixed 16 votes (kunwari everybody present) — yan daw ang ibig sabihin ng Constitution sa “2/3 of all the members,” na pinanindigan pa ni Justice Azcuna. Pahihirapan ang current Majority of 13 to come up with 3 more votes.

At siyempre the DDS bloc want Estrada and Marcoleta to be allowed to attend the hearings either electronically or in person, and supplied with copies of transcripts atbp. para makaboto din sila. Ang tanong, para que? For what? For the numbers man lang, para madagdagan ang bilang nila, in case mabawasan pa dahil BAKA may makasuhan at makulong pang iba?

WHAT IF WE RAISE THE BAR
What kind of Senate is this na ang daming miyembro na may kaso, o may nagbabadyang kaso, for plunder atbp. What if, sa 2028, i-ban ng Comelec from running for election anyone with a pending corruption case? Itigil na yang innocent-until-proven-guilty eklat. Lalo pa kung flood-control-scam related ang kaso — itrato silang guilty-until-proven-innocent, and, therefore, not qualified to run for public office or deserving of public trust until declared innocent by the courts.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
Believe it or not, the legal maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is based on the long questioned, always challenged, premise that humans are inherently good — isinilang tayo na mabait — therefore daw, if accused of wrongdoing, it is more likely that you are innocent rather than guilty.  Pero hindi ba kabaligtaran iyan ng Catholic premise of “original sin” na ating kinagisnan kinalakhan at pinaniniwalaan, and which is why mayroong Baptism, Confession, and Communion, even Extreme Unction, ang Simbahan as cleansing Sacraments?

Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticised him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society. https://www.bbcearth.com/

Let the burden be on the accused senators and congressmen — first come first served — to prove that they’re innocent, and if they cannot, likely because their SALNs and bank accounts and maybe new whistleblowers say otherwise, then ipagkukulong sila. No ifs or buts, no house or hospital arrests, No Mercy.

FOR NOW, LOOKING FORWARD TO ORAL ARGUMENTS

Sept 23 the Court is set to hear oral arguments from the prosecution and defense on the threshold question, after which the Senators will decide, although Sen Ping is asking to sleep on it before voting. Nang mapag-isipan nang mabuti. Oo nga naman. It will be quite a show.