Trips to China … not irrelevant

Day One of the Defense sa Senate Impeachment Court was white noise — Davao City assessor Engineer Jaime Adalin testifying on tax records of a piece of property owned by VP Sara’s Mans Carpio – that is, until Prosecution counsel Jay Tolosa asked Adalin about a trip to China.

Tolosa : Sometime in November 2025, you’re one of the LGU officials of Davao who went to China on an all-expense paid tour sponsored by the Chinese Consulate. Is that correct?

Siempre nag-object ang Defense: Irrelevant!

TOLOSA: We want to check his credibility your honor, if he will admit this or not.
PO CHIZ: You’re on a short leash, Counsel …. Kindly answer, Engineer Jimmy…
ADALIN: [Seriously] I think that’s irrelevant. [Laughs, covers mouth]
PO CHIZ: [Laughs] Funny ka doon, Engineer Jimmy… funny ka doon…
TOLOSA: It’s my last question…
ADALIN: Actually I can’t remember…
https://www.facebook.com/senateph/  2:17:51

My theory is, he had anticipated the question, asked someone for advice, and he was told not to worry, it was irrelevant, so that’s exactly what he said. Siempre inusisa nina Sen Risa ang trip to China but Adalin only made matters worse for his credibility by saying he couldn’t remember when and where and had to be reminded of two trips, one in Nov 2025, another in Jan 2026.

Selective forgetting, what else, a defense mechanism, dahil alam niyang masalimuot at kritikal na isyu ang Ph-China relations sa kasalukuyan, and certainly not irrelevant.

JOEL COCHICO: Mukhang nabili na ng China ang local gov’t officials ng Davao City. https://www.facebook.com/

Nothing that has to do with China is irrelevant. Not when China is waging war on us of the “gray-zone” kind — no shots fired, but insidiously gaining EEZ territory in the West Ph Sea, driving away our fishermen, and waging psy-war, mocking our Arbitral Victory, deploying fake narratives, even depicting us as monkeys, and egging on the DDS to push for China’s interests, never mind ours. Just the day before, the VP was in Hong Kong, rallying her OFW troops, talking “unity without borders”.

VP SARA: Totoo man, mayroon tayong girian sa West Ph Sea pero dapat iniisip ng pamahalaan, gaano  ba kalaki ang baril mo (raises tiny finger)! Gaano ba kalaki ang baril ng kalaban [raises right fist]?

On Day Three of the Defense, it was Sen Robin who took up the cudgels for China, asking: “Bakit po issue ang pagpunta sa China?” This is of a piece with VP Sara’s question back in October when the Prosecution noted Mans Carpio’s China-linked companies: “Bawal ba talaga magnegosyo with China?”

It’s not bawal, whether junketting to, or doing business with, China, but, to my mind, given the currently testy state of affairs, maybe it would help if visits and dealings do not mean being, and feeling, indebted to China? But then again, sasabihin. nila, what about those of you who are, and feel, indebted to America? What’s the difference, pareho lang sila na pinagsasamantalahan tayo.

BETWEEN AMERICA AND CHINA

Totoo naman. At patuloy tayong pagsasamantalahan ng America at ng Tsina, and we need to come to a consensus on how best to deal with both powers, kahit ano pa ang kahinatnan ng nagaganap na matinding iringan, unahán, agawan nila for global geopolitical dominance.

This should tell us, if we are truly thinking of our nation’s interests, that it behooves us all to step back, take stock, think ahead, lalo na yung maiingay na “progressive” pundits who are forever calling out the “Tsinadors” and “traitors” and Makapilis, and the tiresome hardline leftists who are still forever ranting against fascist America and Amboys and puppets and puppies, among us.

Yes, all we have are words, sabi nga ng isang anti-China political heckler, but resorting to name-calling is just bardagulan, and far from, nothing close to, having a national conversation, which entails hearing each other out, and arriving at an informed and coherent response to the crisis that besets us.

Read Stephen Cu-unjieng’s latest Manila Times column “De-escalation of rhetoric”. https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/

I get the impression that “some government officials” and their more jingoistic supporters in the press are not just trying to impose their views on us, but silence through intimidation and shaming even nuanced views to the contrary. And not just on goals, even on approach and style. Whenever someone tries to brand someone who disagrees with him or his views as disloyal or a traitor, I immediately wonder how sound his views are if he has to resort to shaming and intimidation of those who disagree or may not even disagree with the goals but merely the methods being utilized. I am not questioning their sincerity or belief. But to what effect? [Emphases mine]

Instead of calling each other out on our biases, what if we call out China on the methods it is using against us that’s mostly heavy-handed and insulting? Cu-unjieng is right, the goal is not just to vent but to get results, or avoid a disastrous one.

I disagree with their approach and think it is counterproductive. I am not naïve or ideologically lazy enough to believe any superpower is benign and does not act in its self-interest. I am also cognizant that there are differences in how aggressive and bullying different superpowers can be….

It is good to be reminded that should the situation escalate, our “special relations” with America is not likely to count for much. Huwag kalimutan how we lost Scarborough Shoal  anyway back in 2012 even as America tried, and failed, to broker a mutual withdrawal.

We will have to rely on our big brother to support us beyond words and token aid. Is that something we can really count on? Or a prudent route to take given the costs to us even if the big brother gives his full support? In deciding whether the big brother will, think not of the cost to us, but to the superpower to support us in the way we will need. After all, like any mature country, the superpower ally will act first in their self-interest. Words and assurances notwithstanding. Don’t believe me? Then why did we get to the situation we were in during the second Aquino administration in 2012 and its aftermath which continues? Who did they rely on and what happened? If you say that was a different American administration, do you think the present one is more reliable? Don’t be naïve.

Which brings me back to the Impeachment Trial that China is closely watching, according to De La Salle U. geopolitical analyst Dr. Don McLain Gill on Storycon 5 Nov https://www.youtube.com/

GILL. China is watching intently. It recognizes that post 2028 there may be changes that would be significantly in favor of Beijing’s master plan for the Indo-Pacific, for the first island chain (Ph, Taiwan, and Japan) for instance. And this is why as early as now, no matter how much time we have left, [we need] to ensure that we have safeguards erected for the long term

***

Impeach bulagâ … 3 Articles dropped!

***

I could tell from lead prosecutor Rep. Jinky Luistro‘s face as she took to the podium that something was up, something serious, and she couldn’t seem to decide what kind of face to put on it, betrayed by a visible twitch from her usual pa-pleasant mien to pa-serious and resolute, even, grim, as befitted such a bombshell.

*

My immediate reaction when I heard Luistro citing, among other reasons, public impatience with the prolonged proceedings, was, HA? But is it good for the public na walang closure on the Grave Threats and Confidential Funds complaints? After all that, we get no final judgement on the two Articles, walang clear, firm, unambiguous decision from the senator-judges if the VP is impeachable or not on either charge? Bitin, di ba. Hindi nalalayo sa objection ng Defense na matapos “siraan” ng Prosecution ang VP over Grave Threats and Confidential Funds, biglang hindi na nila mailalahad ang kanilang alternative version of events.

*

But earlier in the proceedings, the Defense had the option to present their rebuttal, per Article, immediately after hearing the evidence of the Prosecution. They said no. Sabi nga ng isang Facebook friend:

Seems defense wanted prosecution to lay out all cards on all charges first, so defense could swoop in and rebut them all with whatever evidence they claim they have, and hope to memorably close trial with a strong last word on everything. The risk was, withdrawal of any charge could dispense with the court’s need to hear the defense’s response on what had already been presented. Defense played that game, which has turned out to be a big miscalculation.

Either hindi na-anticipate ng Defense ang galaw ng Prosecution, or na-anticipate nila but thought it couldn’t happen anymore once the Prosecution had presented their evidence, or sumugal sila at natalo.

*

Say ni lead Defense counsel Michael Poa sa Headstart, for Grave Threats they had planned to establish context — that the VP herself was under threat — and I imagine that they would have insisted it was just a “conditional threat”.  For Confidential Funds,  they were prepared to explain about Mary Grace Piattos atbp. Also, that they had planned to subpoena witnesses who are not aligned with the Defense, as in, hostile witnesses! Among them, sabi ng isang bubwit sa Facebook, sina Madriaga, Trillanes, at Matibag. Kung totoo, ‘twould have been quite a show.

*

But. We do not have the luxury of time to indulge in lengthy Defense theatrics, which would bring no closure anyway from the Senator-Judges on the two Articles. The Prosecution took 38 days to present some 40 witnesses for 3 Articles. How long kayâ would the Defense take to present some 90 witnesses (though that number includes witnesses for the Bribery charge that was dropped earlier)?  Tila hanggang March 2027 daw, if not later, given the Defense’s strategic delaying tactics that could include a run to the Supremes for this or that, hopefully to keep the Trial going until campaign period for 2028?  It could be another reason why they’re so upset about the Prosecution dropping three Articles. Kasi, ngayong isa na lang, yung Undeclared Wealth, may pag-asang matapos before Christmas, para magkaalaman na finally, and we could all plan accordingly.

*

As for the Defense’s complaint na nasiraan ang VP sa publiko nang bonggang-bongga over the Grave Threats and Confidential Funds hearings, parang hindi totoo. She still keeps topping the surveys, steady at some 50 % more or less, and I suspect that it has mostly to do with the Tatay being in jail and on trial in The Hague. Pakikiramay baga. Which should tell us that we need to get our act together, literally and figuratively, to unite the other 50 % behind one candidate in 2028, and to make ligaw some of her 50 %, for a fighting chance man lang, or else.

***

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