Filipina Vice President Sara Duterte Awaits Senate Trial Following House Impeachment

Vice President Sara Duterte speaking at a Manila press conference on February 7, 2025 Basilio Sepe, AP Photo

On February 5, the Philippine House of Representatives voted to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte. The vote was raised over complaints of alleged corruption involving the misuse of public funds and failure to declare wealth as required by law, alongside plotting the assassination of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos. At a news conference on November 23, the Vice President claimed she contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife, and the Speaker of the House Martin Romualdez. Later, she contended the comment was not a threat, instead an expression of worry for her own safety. Concerns regarding the VP’s lack of assertiveness towards China, citing her failure to denounce Xi Jinping’s behavior challenging Philippine presence in the South China Seas, added to those raised in the vote. Duterte has denied all accusations. 

Exceeding the one-third minimum for an impeachment, with 215 of the 306 members in favor, the vote will proceed to the Senate. The impeachment claim is set to be addressed in June, when Congress resumes following the May midterm elections. Given that 12 of the 24 Senate seats are up for re-election, and 16 votes are needed to convict, the midterms are imperative in deciding the outcome of the impeachment trial. 

If convicted, Duterte would be ousted from her current position and barred from future entry into public office, squandering tentative plans for presidential candidacy in the 2028 election. The impeachment, if passed, would mark the first of a Vice President in the Philippines. In this instance, Marcos would nominate a member of Congress as a successor. The newly-appointed senators are among the potential candidates. 

The impeachment case is the latest manifestation of the feud between Marcos and Duterte. Since landslide victories in 2022, the “UniTeam” has experienced rifts over diverging anti-drug agendas and foreign policy. Duterte’s absence of defiance against China’s aggression in the SCS has created tension with Marcos’s continued efforts to strengthen U.S.-Philippine relations. With speculation swirling around the VP’s intentions to run for President following Marcos’s term, the impeachment trial holds the potential to not only shape the outcome of the 2028 presidential elections but the direction of the country’s relationships with the U.S. and China. 

The House decision comes amid an ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the mass extrajudicial killings that occurred under the “War on Drugs” launched in 2016 by the VP’s father and former President, Rodrigo Duterte. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that over 8,000 people have been killed under the banner of the campaign. On the claim that the case violates principles of non-intervention and sovereignty, Rodrigo Duterte issued the withdrawal of Philippine membership from the ICC’s Rome Statute. The Philippines officially withdrew in March 2019, making it the second to rescind membership following Burundi in 2017. Retaining the assertion that the case threatens sovereignty, Marcos stated that “the Philippine government will not lift a finger to help any investigation that the ICC conducts.” Given the lack of cooperation exhibited by the government and the court’s means of enforcement, the violence is likely to persist as the campaign, though toned down, carries on. Human rights groups are concerned that the VP may intensify the campaign, if given the opportunity. The impeachment trial, granting or denying Duterte’s ability to maintain and run for office, may be critical in determining how the crisis unfolds.

Thailand Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Patipat Janthong, Reuters

On Thursday, January 23, 2025, Thailand became the first country in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Joining Taiwan and Nepal in becoming only the third country in all of Asia to do so, the legislation is no less impressive from a country with widespread conservative ideals. Nonetheless, Thai LGBTQ+ individuals have often expressed their experiences with blatant discrimination despite Thailand’s long-standing reputation as a queer safe haven, especially in comparison to other states in the region. Representation at the federal level has also long been dominated by conservative politicians. 

However, the legislation swept through both the House of Representatives and Senate last year with overwhelming support. Of the 415 members present at the voting ceremony in Thailand’s lower chamber, 400 voted for the measure; similarly, of the 152 members present to vote in the Senate, 130 approved. Furthermore, as a constitutional monarchy, the legislation was officially codified after King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s endorsement. Under the new law, same-sex couples receive all the same benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do: full financial, medical, and legal rights and protections.

The Marriage Equality Act, as the legislation is known, amends Article 1448 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code by changing the qualifications for marriage from “man and woman” to “individuals.” The country’s Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra of the ruling Pheu Thai party, supported the legislation and celebrated its enactment in a video address to the country where she announced, “From now on, all love will be certified by law. All couples will live with honor and dignity in Thailand.”

According to the Department of Provincial Administration, at least 1,832 couples from across the country registered their marriages on Thursday. Though there is much work left to be done in Thailand regarding equal protection under the law, especially for LGBTQ+ individuals, Thursday nonetheless marks a significant milestone in a positive direction for the queer community in Southeast Asia. 

South Korea: President Yoon’s arrest, impeachment, and declaration of martial law

Photo Credit: Ahn Young-joon/AP

After an hours-long standoff, former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was arrested on January 15 on insurrection charges following his declaration of martial law on December 3. This arrest, which saw the deployment of 1,000 officers, came after a failed attempt twelve days earlier during which officials were blocked by his supporters and security team.  

Earlier, on December 14, 2024, the South Korean National Assembly voted to impeach President Yoon following his brief declaration of martial law on December 3. Yoon defended his decision, arguing that he had a legitimate use of military rule due to his belief that the opposition in control of Parliament consists of North Korean communist sympathisers. Since assuming office in 2022, Yoon has faced consistent opposition from Parliament and has had marginal success in getting his policies adopted.

The constitutional provision granting the president the right to declare martial law has a dark history in South Korea. The Constitution grants the executive the ability to impose military rule in the case of “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states.” However, past presidents have misused this power, giving them the right to impose a de facto dictatorship over political opponents and civilians. To alleviate this risk, the National Assembly has the right to check this use of power and can lift martial law with a majority vote. Immediately after President Yoon’s declaration, lawmakers voted 190-0 to revoke the order. The National Assembly’s adherence to the rule of law through the use of democratic institutions shows a commitment to the balance of power between branches, and a dedication to political accountability for the executive. 

Following the failed insurrection attempt, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) launched an insurrection case against Yoon. In addition to his declaration of martial law, Yoon has been accused of failing to cooperate with the CIO. After ignoring court-sanctioned questioning and refusing to comply with investigative procedures, the court issued a warrant for his arrest, making him the first South Korean president arrested in office. If found guilty of insurrection, the penalty for offense is life in prison or the death penalty. 

During this time of political turmoil, South Korea had Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok fill in as acting president since December 27. Han Duck-soo, the previous successor, was impeached by the legislature for refusal to fill vacancies on the Constitutional Court.  

Despite the fact that many South Koreans disapprove of his actions, the political disorder around Yoon has brought a resurgence to his approval rating, and a consolidation around his political party, the People Power Party (PPP). According to recent polls, support for the PPP was at 40.8 percent versus the main opposition, the Democratic Party, whose support stood at 42.2 percent. This difference lies within the margin of error, indicating no clear winner in a future presidential election should Yoon be found guilty of impeachment and removed from office.  

In the coming days, authorities will question Yoon and decide on whether to charge and arrest him for attempting a rebellion. However, according to the CIO, Yoon has resisted questioning and refused to participate in the investigation. Additionally, on January 14, the Constitutional Court launched a parallel investigation regarding the Parliament’s decision to impeach Yoon. If endorsed by the courts, an election must be held within sixty days.  

Update January 19: 

On Sunday January 19, a South Korean court officially issued a warrant for Yoon’s arrest and extended his detention for up to 20 days. This announcement sparked a swarm of his supporters to storm the court building, smashing windows and doors to reach the entrance of the building. Once inside, they blasted a line of police guards with fire extinguishers, destroyed furniture, and physically assaulted the officers. Once peace was restored, forty-six of the rioters were arrested. 

China and South Korea: Foreign Ministers talk while Kim Jong Un threatens war

Written by: Luke Wagner; Edited by: Diya Jain 

During a Wednesday phone call with South Korea’s top diplomat Cho Tae-yul, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi vowed to uphold “stability and continuity” in its national policy. Yi said that he hoped South Korea would pursue a “positive, objective and friendly” policy towards Beijing.  

Chinese-South Korean relations have deteriorated in recent years as Seoul has grown closer to the United States in an apparent effort to counter China and North Korea’s (NK) longstanding security alliances.  

Wednesday’s call was the first time that the countries’ two top diplomats have personally spoken to each other. Foreign Minister Cho took this opportunity to request that Beijing play a “constructive role” in curbing NK’s recent aggressive behavior.  

This request may be tested sooner than either minister would have expected. A day after the call, NK Supreme People’s Assembly voted to scrap all economic and cooperative agreements with South Korea. On Friday, NK Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un declared that its southern neighbor remains “enemy No. 1” and that he would not hesitate to use every power at his disposal to wipe out all enemies that threaten NK. 

These recent tensions reflect what regional expert Scott Snyder from the Council on Foreign Relations has called “an escalatory dynamic between the two Koreas following North Korea’s successful satellite launch last November.”  

If China heeds Cho’s request and works at de-escalation, it will likely be away from the public eye. However, South Korea and its partner Japan may have the chance to bring this issue up with China again soon; during the call, Beijing and Seoul agreed to accelerate preparations for a China-Japan-South Korea summit. Although China hopes South Korea would adopt a positive policy towards Beijing, that will remain complicated while NK’s Kim Jong Un is left unchecked. 

Pakistan: Relations with Iran improve amid promises of security cooperation

Written by: Diya Jain; Edited by: Luke Wagner

Less than two weeks after exchanging airstrikes that led to national outrage and an unraveling of diplomatic relations, Iran and Pakistan have agreed upon terms to pursue joint security cooperation and de-escalate tensions at their border.

Iran initiated attacks against Pakistani military bases which Tehran claimed were being used to harbor military combatants and violent separatist factions. Islamabad faced immediate pressure by its constituents to punish Iran’s actions, prompting retaliation within the next 48 hours. By January 25, both sides had launched their respective offensives, Pakistan had recalled its ambassador to Tehran, and all diplomatic and trade engagements were temporarily frozen. 

This recent escalation reignited fears amongst world leaders that the instability emanating from the conflict in Gaza may be destined to spread and engulf the Middle East. Over the weekend, the United States and European Union both issued statements to deescalate tensions between Iran and Pakistan.

On Monday, despite the confrontation and its resulting deaths – totaling eleven – top Iranian and Pakistani diplomats sat down to talk. Both Tehran and Islamabad re-emphasized a shared commitment to combating terror and preserving political stability in the region. They announced mechanisms for strengthening their relations, including returning ambassadors and diplomats to their posts, pushing for more frequent and transparent diplomatic meetings, and sharing security and counterterrorism technology for identification and targeting of insurgents. Iranian negotiator Hossein Amirabdollahian touted the establishment of new free-trade zones near border regions to facilitate higher volumes of bilateral trade. 

The prospect of nuclear-armed Pakistan providing more robust security technology to Iran poses deep concerns to the international community. While the resolution of tensions between Pakistan and Iran comes as an immediate relief to many across the region, closer alignment between the two could pose worrying trends for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Philippines: Defense Cooperation with Canada amid Simmering South China Sea Tension

Written by: Chloe Baldauf

Today, the Philippines and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding, securing the countries’ shared hopes for deeper defense cooperation. Gilberto Teodoro, the Philippines’ Defense Secretary, referred to the historic moment in Canada-Philippines relations as a sign of “strong intention on both sides to deepen and strengthen the relationships by forging new milestones in our defense relations” and alluded to the possibility of a Visiting Forces Agreement.

The Philippines already has a VFA with the U.S. in addition to the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which ensures U.S. military forces have access to certain training locations in the Philippines and authorizes them to assist with humanitarian initiatives and disaster relief. This may be mirrored in the Philippines’ future defense collaboration with Canada, who has been an open supporter of the Philippines during the dispute over the South China Sea. Canada backed the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in 2016 that China’s claims to the South China Sea were unfounded, incentivizing the two countries to cooperate more closely but not entirely deterring Manila from striving for peaceful relations with Beijing.

Last month, a Chinese embassy spokesperson responded to Canada’s support for the Philippines with a statement warning that the South China Sea should not become a “hunting ground” for Canada and the U.S. to “pursue their geopolitical interests.” 

However, China-Philippines relations have swiftly improved this month with the release of a statement yesterday by the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) saying that China and the Philippines both agreed to “calmly deal with any incidents…through diplomacy.” This came after a meeting in Beijing between Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Nong Rong and Undersecretary of the Philippines DFA Theresa Lazaro that resulted in discussions surrounding maritime security and the need for stability in the South China Sea.

While no more than the initial memorandum of understanding has been signed by the Philippines and Canada, Teodoro expressed expectations that it would “jumpstart” defense cooperation between the two countries by way of military training, military education, and disaster relief.