Informed PH

Co-host and Co-founder of @sitrepph | Curator of Conversations | Interests: Music, #AIArt, Techno, 🇵🇭 Politics

[Informed PH @informedph2]

🚨 Rep. LUISTRO DARES TO ASK THE UNASKABLE🚨

Congresswoman Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, unshaken and fearless, confronts former President Duterte in a gripping interpellation, seeking clarity and accountability for the war on drugs and its chilling legacy.

Emphasizing his promise to take full legal responsibility, Luistro probes: What happened to the bodies buried in Laud Quarry? To the victims of the Davao Death Squad? To the lives lost in the 2004 Dumoy raid?

Former President Duterte fires back, asking, "Where is your proof?"

Luistro responds:
"Mr. President, I’m anchoring my questions about these separate incidents from your initial statement—that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. You are a long-time prosecutor, and of course, it is fundamental among us all lawyers to uphold the requirements of due process."

Duterte counters with: "We are zeroing in on a particular individual now."

Luistro powerfully reminds:
"Mr. President, due process is the law that hears before it condemns. Due process is the law that requires notice and hearing."

The former president’s short rebuttal, "If you say so," leaves the air thick with tension.

Luistro quips back with another gripping reminder:
"Mister President, I hope that we will be reminded that by due process, THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS."

Congresswoman Luistro proceeds to present statistics on the war on drugs:

- 6,252 individuals killed in police anti-drug operations as of May 2022.
- 27,000 to 30,000 individuals killed, including vigilante-style executions.
- 427 activists, human rights defenders, and grassroots leaders killed as of December 2021.
- 166 land and environmental defenders killed as of December 2020.
- 23 journalists and media workers killed as of April 2022.
- 66 judges, lawyers, and prosecutors killed as of December 2021.
- 28 mayors and vice mayors killed as of December 2021.

Cong. Luistro then delivers the crucial question:
"Mr. President, my question is: When you implemented the war on drugs, did you strictly comply with the requirements of due process?"

With a firm and unwavering tone, former President Duterte responds, "YES."

She continues, pointing out:
"It is my humble submission that, contrary to the answer of the former president, I humbly believe that the war on drugs never complied with the requirements of due process. The statistics show the huge number of victims of the war on drugs. If my memory serves me right, during the Aquino administration, there were around 200 victims, and during the present administration, there are around 200 victims as well. Given these statistics, there are almost or around 31,000 victims. If indeed they followed the requirements of due process, there should not have been this many deaths. Instead, there should have been many cases pending in court. I hope that all of us are reminded by the fundamental law that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

It is the humble submission of this representation that the Quad Comm is ready to make a recommendation for the filing of the necessary actions in court for violations of RA 9851—an act defining and penalizing crimes against international humanitarian law—or, at the very least, for murder cases as defined under the Revised Penal Code."

The Interpellation Intensifies

To conclude her interpellation, she delivers a series of no-holds-barred questions:

Luistro:
"Mr. President, three Chinese drug lords were killed at the Davao Penal Colony. Are you willing to take accountability and responsibility for this?"

Duterte:
"Wala ako sa Davao, nandito na ako sa Manila."

Luistro:
"Are you saying no?"

Duterte:
"If gusto mong isali yan, idagdag mo, ok lang."

Luistro:
"How about the death of General (Ret.) Barayuga? Are you willing to take full legal responsibility for this?"

Duterte:
"No, I do not kill generals."

Luistro:
"The death of Mayor Parojinog and the 15 others in Ozamiz City. Are you taking full responsibility for this?"

Duterte:
"Hindi ako nagpapatay ng mga mayor, ma’am."

Luistro:
"The death of Mayor Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte. Are you taking full responsibility for this?"

Duterte:
"That is my birthplace."

Luistro:
"The death of Mayor Toni Halili of Tanauan City?"

Duterte:
"Malayo yan sa akin, ma’am."

Luistro:
"The death of Mayor Perez of Los Baños?"

Duterte:
"Lalo na."

A Riveting Ending

Luistro fires back:
"If you are denying all these, alin po yung tinutukoy niyo when you said you are taking full responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal?"

The former president mumbles in response:
"Yes, kasi order ko kasi yung, that is my campaign against drugs. Alam mo maraming estasyon, maraming police. Kung nagkaleche-leche doon, hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay. Of course, nagkamali sila. If there is an appropriate action na gusto niyong ilabas, then file a case in court. I’m challenging anybody or everybody who makes the accusation, whether it is really true or not—maybe true—file the case in court, because may korte tayo. Even if I admit na totoo yan, because I will make the admission there again."

Luistro counters:
"Are you saying, Mr. President, when you go to court, you are willing to admit accountability for all the deaths during the war on drugs?"

Duterte replies:
"Of course, may abogado ako, ma’am. Kung ano ang sasabihin ng abogado ko, susunod ako."

Luistro presses further:
"I hope that everything you said before the Quad can be reduced in writing so that truly we can believe that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. Because as lawyers, we believe that by extrajudicial confession, we have to put that in writing, Mr. President."

Duterte responds:
"...It’s a policy of government or the president. Hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay..."

The Final Question

Luistro asks:
"If one of these days the ICC will come, will you voluntarily submit yourself?"

Duterte retorts:
"Sipain ko pa sila, ma’am."

Luistro reminds him:
"But you said a while ago, that if somebody will sponsor your fare to the ICC, you will voluntarily submit yourself to their investigation and jurisdiction."

Duterte replies:
"Yes, pero kung sila pumunta dito, sipain ko."

Luistro clarifies:
"But will you confirm that you are willing to voluntarily submit yourself to the ICC?"

Duterte firmly states:
"Oo, punta ako doon, sipain ko din sila."

A Gripping Conclusion

Luistro ends her interpellation with grace and precision:
"I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. President."

In this powerful exchange, Congresswoman Luistro demonstrates fearless leadership and unwavering commitment to truth and accountability, leaving no question unanswered in her pursuit of justice.

#LargaLuistro2025

[Informed PH @informedph2]

@ChismisNChaos 8

[SITREP PH MEDIA @SITREPph]

Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Gibo Teodoro Jr. warned that any attempt by China to board or tow away the BRP Sierra Madre from Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) would be considered an act of war. The statement follows reports from Chinese state-affiliated outlets suggesting Beijing was weighing options to remove or tow away the grounded vessel, alongside ongoing naval standoffs and blocked resupply missions in the West Philippine Sea.

The Navy ship was deliberately grounded at Ayungin Shoal in 1999, remains a central symbol of Philippine territorial assertion in the South China Sea.

[ChismisNChaos🇵🇭 🇻🇦 @ChismisNChaos]

Kinasuhan na ni Pulong ang NBI, Gracioso at GMA7. Mas maganda to kasi hindi naman nanghuhuli ang NBI ng walang ebidensya. Maglabasan sila ng ebidensya sa korte.

[Kiko Pangilinan @kikopangilinan]

𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗢 𝗔𝗡𝗚 𝗗𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗚𝗢𝗧 𝗦𝗔 ₱𝟰𝟬𝟬-𝗠 𝗦𝗠𝗨𝗚𝗚𝗟𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗡𝗔 𝗡𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗔 𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗔𝗢 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬?

Sa pagdinig ng Senate Finance Subcommittee G sa panukalang 2027 budget ng Department of Agriculture (DA), ipinaliwanag ni Agriculture Secretary Francisco "Kiko" Tiu Laurel Jr. ang papel niya sa pagpigil sa halos ₱400 milyong halaga ng smuggled rice na naharang sa Davao City.

Handa rin si Laurel na sumailalim sa imbestigasyon, kasama ang Planters Products Inc. (PPI), na nakalistang consignee ng kargamento sa mga dokumentong tinalakay sa pagdinig.

Mahalagang marinig ang panig ng PPI at mailantad ang buong katotohanan upang matukoy kung sino ang dapat managot kung may mapatunayang iregularidad.

[Macario Sakay @MacSakay65]

🇵🇭 MACSAKAY SPEAKS
BATAS ⚖️ BISE

​Paper Trail Paradox:
Land Titles, Public Denials, &
the SALN Discrepancy
October 23, 2026

​The legal friction surrounding the Vice President’s net worth track isn't just about political noise—it’s now an issue of black-and-white documents.

​While public statements dismiss the NBI findings as political targeting, official land records present a mathematical contradiction that cannot be brushed off.

​⚡ 𝐐𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭:
The Hard Data Actually Shows:

​📌 Documented Titles vs.
Public Denial:

◇ The Vice President publicly dismissed the investigation as "deception" and called NBI Director Melvin Matibag "a nobody".
◇ However, the NBI verified 22 land titles covering 14 properties by matching specific Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) numbers against the Vice President’s signed SALN filings.

​📌 Valuation Discrepancies & Undeclared Improvements:

◇ Catigan Property:
Declared as agricultural land with an acquisition cost under ₱1 million, but verified site inspections reveal developed structures with assessed market values between ₱40M to ₱60M.
◇ Don Bosco & Aundanao Holdings: Land acquisition costs were declared in millions, but actual assessor figures and physical site mapping show substantial undeclared structural improvements.

​📌 Legal Dilemma:

◇ Under the rules of evidence, the "best evidence rule" dictates that official public documents speak for themselves.
◇ Claiming a property does not belong to you while simultaneously carrying its TCT description and signature on your official SALN creates a legal exposure that general public denials cannot fix.

​😎 𝑺𝒂 𝑨𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒚;
𝑴𝒈𝒂 𝑲𝒂-𝑺𝒂𝒌𝒂𝒚, in legal battles and realpolitik, rhetoric will always fall flat against physical land titles and official filings.

​Hindi mo pwedeng sabihin sa media na hindi sa 'yo ang isang property kapag ang TCT number nito ay nakatatak mismo sa sarili mong pirma sa SALN.

General denial is the weakest form of defense when faced with a verified paper trail.

​As the Ombudsman handles the referred documents and we count down to the November 9 trial resumption, the defense panel must offer concrete documentation—not just public brush-offs.

​Let us keep our analytical lenses sharp as the hard facts unfold.
◇~~~~~◇~~~~~◇
@MrAnonymousFri1 @ImaHavinagredei @informedph2 @laiteranidaddy @ChismisNChaos @succubus_20

[Collin Koh 🇸🇬🇺🇦 @CollinSLKoh]

Dumb post by certain numbskulls in the embassy that prioritizes propagandistic messaging over common sense. MDT is a defense treaty that’s got nothing to do with trade. And it’s dated to 1951 not 2025. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Jay Tarriela @jaytaryela]

Tinuruan ako ng aking mga magulang na huwag magsalita ng masama laban sa matatanda. Pero since nagmumura na si Lola, let me respond.

Una, your statements proved only one thing: kung bakit you were not able to at least be the National Security Adviser kahit one year man lang. Imagine mas galit pa kayo sa akin kaysa sa China.

Pangalawa, i can still remember why you asked me bakit kita tinatanong (“Why me?”) about our deployment in the WPS to respond to China’s presence that i have to remind you that you were the chairperson of NTF-WPS during that time.

Pangatlo, im wondering bakit mo ako bina-badmouth ngayon. Pero na-realize ko rin: siguro kailangan mo talaga ng support, ang mahal na kasi ng diesel. Pasensya na, maam, di ko na po kayo nabigyan ng gas slips.

Anyone who was part of the NTFWPS dyirng her time as NSA would definitely state that she never did anything to stand up for our rights in the WPS. We need to remember that the transparency initiative in the WPS only started when she was replaced and when Gen Eduardo Año took over.

[🇵🇭 Laitera🇵🇭 @laiteranidaddy]

Nakita ko lang 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Thirty One Million @31milmovement]

MADE IN CHINA SI LOLA..

Tsk tsk. Now we know. Bastos ng bunganga. Tumandang paurong.

📸 CTTO

[Thirty One Million @31milmovement]

LEONEN AND THE GAA RULING: WHAT WAS DECIDED AND WHAT WAS NOT?

There is an important difference between the Supreme Court declaring certain budget provisions unconstitutional and establishing that the President committed a crime.

On October 7, 2026, the Supreme Court En Banc released a decision concerning the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts (GAA). Under the 2024 GAA, the increase in unprogrammed appropriations reached ₱449.5 billion. Under the 2025 GAA, the Court questioned a ₱17.99-billion increase in the DPWH Special Road Fund.

WHAT DID LEONEN SAY?

On October 7, 2026, the Supreme Court released a decision authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

According to the ruling:

“The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he certified as urgent House Bill No. 8980.”

This refers to #PBBM’s certification of the 2024 budget bill as urgent. In the majority decision, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in that particular act.

However, it is important to clarify that in his separate opinion in a case involving the 2024 GAA, Leonen disagreed with the majority regarding the urgency certification and the increase in unprogrammed appropriations. He wrote that the increase, which expanded the President’s expenditure program by ₱449.5 billion, was unconstitutional.

It is therefore necessary to identify whether a statement refers to the majority decision or Leonen’s separate opinion. They reached different conclusions on several key issues.

CLAIRE CASTRO: THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWED THE PROCESS

On October 21, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said:

“This administration merely followed the processes stated under the law. So, we do not see any accountability on the part of the President.”

Malacañang announced plans to file a motion for reconsideration, asking the Supreme Court to review the portions of the decision that the administration disputes.

The Palace’s position is that the President should not be presumed to have had criminal intent simply because he signed the budget. His actual actions and the evidence of personal liability must be examined.

CAMILLE TING: CRIMINAL LIABILITY WAS NOT THE DIRECT ISSUE

According to Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting, the central issue in the case was the constitutionality of the budget provisions, not a determination that the President had committed a crime.

However, officials responsible for unconstitutional appropriations may still face separate civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings. The doctrine of operative fact may preserve the effects of certain completed transactions and programs involving beneficiaries who acted in good faith, but it does not automatically shield officials from liability.

SOLICITOR GENERAL: BUDGET INCREASES HAVE A HISTORICAL CONTEXT

During the October 22, 2026 press briefing, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe argued that the use of unprogrammed appropriations under previous administrations should also be considered.

The government’s argument is that this budget mechanism did not originate under the Marcos administration. However, historical precedent alone does not establish that every appropriation is constitutional. Each provision must be assessed under the Constitution and the conditions governing the release of funds.

GOOD FAITH AND DUE PROCESS

The fact that a budget provision has been declared unconstitutional is not enough to automatically treat every official involved as a criminal.

If the President acted in good faith and there is insufficient evidence of a crime, political accusations cannot replace legal proceedings. But good faith is not blanket immunity either. Evidence of bad faith or the unlawful use of public funds must be examined by the proper tribunal.

continue reading 👇

[Ivan 🇵🇭🇻🇦 @IvanAtHome]

I swear, if the prosecutors on the Romualdez case fuck up this trial because of technicalities like this, like the witnesses never really saw the money, it'll be so funny. 😅

Can the folks at the Department of Justice and the Ombudsman shape up? They put a lot of political capital into bagging Romualdez as one of the supposed "big fishes".

https://t.co/8u0qY9aX8Q

[Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭 @jesusfalcis]

🚨 JUST IN:

Hugpong Partylist and MOCHA Partylist (kay Mocha Uson) inalis ng COMELEC for the 2028 Elections. 😂

Kaso inalis din ang Bayan Muna and Magdalo Partylists!

🙀

#Halalan2028

[Truth Tellah @SeaLion_799]

Halimaw sa bilis si Sec Vince sa EDSA Rehabilitation!

In 3 days, bukas agad ung na-reblock!

Sabi ng kakilala ko, smooth ride!

Nung kay Duterte - need daw nya ng EMERGENCY POWERS.

🤣🤣🤣

https://t.co/T7RI0ImfNG

[Ivan 🇵🇭🇻🇦 @IvanAtHome]

Chinese Communists and their lists, man. 😂

Why do these clowns insist on making themselves sound cartoon villain stereotypes each time?

[Informed PH @informedph2]

@laiteranidaddy hahahhahha

[Lala ❤️ @cruzkaren53]

TAMA! Tumulong pa nga ang isang religious group e.
🤭🤭 Hindi nyo kaya ang isang Bongbong Marcos!

"Nasanay kc sila sa Davao na sila ang hari at diyos."

[Macario Sakay @MacSakay65]

🇵🇭 MACSAKAY SPEAKS |
SICILIAN 👑GAMBIT
Board Update

ZUGZWANG ENDGAME:
White King Sanitized the Board and the Pawn Held the Center
October 20, 2026

​In classical Russian grandmaster chess, there is a dreaded structural condition known as 𝒁𝒖𝒈𝒛𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒈.

​It describes a board state where a player is under an inescapable obligation to move, yet every single legal square available systematically worsens their position.

If they strike outward, they overextend their flank; if they pull back, their center collapses; if they sit still, the clock runs out.

​Right now, that exact institutional vise is closing around VPSara Duterte, her legislative bloc, and the entire Davao machinery.

​⚡ 𝐐𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭

​📌 The Illusion of the Fallen Pawn Brothers & The Courtroom Trap:

◇ Calculated Exposure:
Early in the conflict, the opposition thought they had neutralized the House Speaker. By dredging up old legacy cases, pointing to the Romualdez brothers' long-standing Sandiganbayan dockets, and throwing personal slurs like "tambaloslos," they believed the frontline pawn was crippled and discredited.

◇ King's Feint:
The White King, Pres Natcos Jr., let them believe Rep Martin Romualdez completely cornered and vulnerable.

While the opposition fixated on attacking the exposed pawn, Rep Romualdez stood dead still—absorbing the hits in total institutional silence.

◇ The Unflinching Stand:
When the courtroom test came, state witnesses crumbled under cross-examination without direct receipts.

The pawn didn't run. He held the exact center of the board and executed his singular, constitutional duty: He opened then in Dec 2024 gates of the House on for the Quad-Committee, Appropriations scrutiny, and the impeachment process.

​📌 Sovereign King Sanitizes the Board *Severing the War Chest:

Make no mistake:
Rep Martin Romualdez did not orchestrate this campaign alone; he was the King’s frontline defender. It was the King, PBBM who executed the high-level prophylaxis, systematically cutting the financial jugular of the Davao fortress:

​◇ POGO Decapitation:
PBBM’s executive ban dismantled the multi-billion-peso subterranean money-laundering channels that served as untraceable operational grease.

​◇ DPWH Infrastructure & Contractor Exposé:
The administration launched forensic audits and executive scrutiny into legacy DPWH infrastructure allocations, bloated ghost projects, and favored regional contractors.

For years, massive public works contracts in the South served as a legal front to siphon state funds directly into regional political machines.

By tightening project vetting, freezing suspicious procurement disbursements, and exposing engineering kickback conduits, the King severed the institutional cash faucet that fed the fortress's ground patronage.

​◇ The Ripple Effect on Allied Dynasties & Power Brokers:
Exposing these infrastructure channels didn't just hurt contractors—it sent shockwaves through their allied political networks.

When public works kickbacks, procurement anomalies, and paper-trail audits hit the spotlight, key business conduits and political families were forced onto the defensive.

Once their contractor pipelines and resource pools were scrutinized, they could no longer deploy dirty money to fund rallies, bankroll political noise, or shield the Vice President.

​◇ Underground Gaming Squeeze:
Clamping down on shadow gambling networks, e-sabong syndicates, and grey-market liquidity patrons like Atong Ang dried up the informal billionaire conduits that historically bankrolled regional machinery.

​◇ Regional Narco Intercept:
DILG Sec. Jonvic Remulla dropped the hammer on a ₱3.54-billion *521 kg, shabu haul from Laos bound for Pasay hangars—exposing regional financiers *like former BARMM official Rimbang who had been suspiciously shielded from the previous regime's drug lists.
◇~~~~~◇~~~~~◇
@informedph2 @laiteranidaddy @MrAnonymousFri1
@ImaHavinagredei

[Informed PH @informedph2]

@succubus_20 SAVAGE AF. This video never gets old. 😅

[HAPPY PEPE @succubus_20]

Asan na yung pinagyayabang Ng mga putang inang DDS

Nakatulong ba yung fire truck nyo?

[🇵🇭 Laitera🇵🇭 @laiteranidaddy]

DELAY TACTICS OR DUE PROCESS? SARA’S DEFENSE QUESTIONED IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

MANILA, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial became controversial after the defense objected to several prosecution measures and withdrew three of the four Articles of Impeachment.

On October 13, the Senate allowed the withdrawal of Articles I, III, and IV, which concerned confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats. Article II remained, involving alleged unexplained wealth, incomplete declarations of assets, and business interests.

This raised questions about whether the defense’s objections were part of due process or were prolonging the trial.

ALTERNATE PRESENTATION REJECTED BY DEFENSE

The prosecution proposed presenting evidence alternately for each article so that the defense could immediately respond. According to prosecution spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., the defense rejected the proposal, even though it had allegedly already been given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, however, insisted that their camp should be given the opportunity to respond to all allegations against Duterte.

OBJECTIONS TO FINANCIAL RECORDS

The defense also questioned the financial records and testimony of Atty. Alexander Cabrera, who examined records obtained through a subpoena.

Cabrera estimated alleged unexplained wealth and income amounting to ₱817.87 million from 2022 to 2025, which he linked to Duterte and her husband, Manases “Mans” Carpio. Reports also cited amounts ranging from ₱817 million to ₱1.5 billion.

These were not final findings but evidence that could still be challenged. The court also allowed both sides to share the records with their forensic experts, subject to established safeguards.

THE MEDIA AS A SECOND ARENA

Both sides continued exchanging statements outside the Senate. The defense criticized the withdrawal of the three articles and its effect on their opportunity to respond.

Senate President and presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, meanwhile, explained that easing the sub judice restrictions would also give Duterte an opportunity to speak publicly.

However, media statements are not a substitute for evidence.

DROPPED ARTICLES WILL NO LONGER BE VOTED ON

Because the three articles were withdrawn, only Article II will be considered in the trial and subjected to a final vote by the senator-judges.

Critics may view the insistence on discussing articles that will no longer be adjudicated as broadening and slowing the process. The defense, however, maintained its right to respond to the earlier allegations.

JUSTICE, NOT JUST SPEED

Not every defense objection is a delaying tactic. Challenging evidence and procedures is part of a fair trial.

At the same time, the impeachment court must ensure that every step has a clear purpose and that the trial is completed within a reasonable period.

Ultimately, the case will depend on whether the prosecution can prove Article II and whether the defense can adequately respond to it. Evidence, the law, and due process should prevail.