Half of Filipino Voters Oppose VP Sara Duterte’s Impeachment: A Nation on the Edge Ahead of Senate Trial

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a nation teetering on the brink of a political reckoning, the latest Pulse Asia Research survey has sent shockwaves through the corridors of power. Conducted from May 6 to 9, 2025, the poll reveals that 50% of registered Filipino voters reject the House of Representatives’ move to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, marking a sharp and emotional divide among the electorate as the country barrels toward an unprecedented Senate trial in July.

This impeachment case, the first ever against a sitting Philippine vice president, is not merely a legal proceeding—it is a defining moment that threatens to reshape the political landscape for years to come.

A Nation Torn: The Pulse of the People

The survey, encompassing 2,400 face-to-face interviews with a ±2% margin of error, asked a simple yet seismic question: Do Filipinos agree with the House’s decision to impeach Duterte?

The answers paint a portrait of a deeply fractured nation:

50% disagreed with the impeachment

23% agreed

20% remained undecided

7% admitted to knowing too little to form an opinion

The regional breakdown reveals even starker contrasts. In Mindanao, Duterte's stronghold, a staggering 88% rejected the impeachment. Visayas followed with 46% disapproval. Meanwhile, Metro Manila—a crucible of media and political activism—showed the highest support at 45%, with only 33% opposing. The rest of Luzon was more tepid, registering 34% in favor and 24% against.

Across economic classes, opposition ranged from 45% in Class ABC to 56% in Class E, signaling that resistance to Duterte’s ouster spans social divides, especially among the country’s most vulnerable.

The Charges That Shook the Vice Presidency

What began in December 2024 as whispers of wrongdoing has erupted into a full-blown impeachment saga. Four separate complaints, consolidated and affirmed by 215 lawmakers on February 5, 2025, accuse Vice President Duterte of:

Misusing ₱612.5 million in confidential funds from the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education

Bribing Department of Education officials

Alleged complicity or indifference to extrajudicial killings during her father’s bloody anti-drug campaign

Duterte has fiercely denied all allegations, branding the impeachment as "a political witch hunt" and filed a petition before the Supreme Court on February 18 to strike down the complaint.

The Impeachment Trial: A Nation Holds Its Breath

As the Senate, under the leadership of President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, prepares to transform into an impeachment court on July 30, 2025, the country braces for what could be its most polarizing political event in decades. The trial will commence shortly after the May midterm elections—elections that will determine whether Duterte’s allies or adversaries dominate the chamber.

To convict Duterte, the Senate must muster 16 guilty votes—a formidable threshold that could either vindicate the Vice President or end her political career.

Rising Tensions, Rising Stakes

Public skepticism about the process runs high. The same Pulse Asia survey found 35% of voters doubt the Senate's impartiality, with 66% of Mindanaoans expressing concern over the fairness of the impeachment court.

The stakes could not be higher. Sara Duterte currently leads early surveys for the 2028 presidential race with 39%, positioning her as the heir apparent to the nation’s highest office. A conviction would not only remove her from power but effectively derail her presidential ambitions—an outcome that her supporters view as a calculated political takedown.

A Trial That Could Redefine the Republic

This impeachment is more than a legal drama. It’s a national confrontation—a test of truth, power, and the Philippine democratic soul. With fault lines deepening across regions, social classes, and political factions, the July trial promises to be a historic moment of reckoning.

As the country watches and waits, one thing is certain: the Philippines is on the cusp of a political transformation, and the verdict on Sara Duterte could be the spark that ignites a new chapter—or the flame that consumes it all.

Between Caution and Compassion: The Complex Debate Over Puberty Blockers for Children

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In an era defined by both scientific advancement and cultural reckoning, few issues stir as much emotional and intellectual conflict as the use of puberty blockers in children. At the heart of the debate lies a deeply human concern: how best to protect and support children as they navigate the formative years of self-discovery. On one side, there is a rising consensus among medical professionals affirming the legitimacy and necessity of gender-affirming care. On the other, there is a growing unease—one not rooted in hatred, but in fear, caution, and a deep sense of responsibility.

It begins with a fundamental belief: every individual deserves the right to live authentically, to be seen and respected for who they are. This includes members of the LGBTQ+ community, who have long fought for visibility, acceptance, and equality. But with this acknowledgment comes an equally important question: when does affirmation become action, and when does action become irreversible?

Many who voice concern about puberty blockers do so from a place of protective instinct. The intention is not to erase identity, but to ensure that children—still learning, still evolving—do not make decisions with permanent consequences before they are developmentally ready. Puberty blockers are not cosmetic. They alter physical development at a crucial stage. While they can be life-saving for some experiencing profound gender dysphoria, for others, especially those lacking proper support or acting under social pressure, the decision could become a source of regret.

Children are not legally allowed to drink, smoke, or get tattoos. Society has long recognized that minors require limits, not to oppress, but to safeguard their growth. In the same spirit, it is fair—perhaps even necessary—to question the wisdom of allowing life-altering medical interventions without thorough psychological evaluation, parental involvement, and rigorous medical oversight.

This concern, however, must not veer into denial or dismissal of gender dysphoria itself—a very real and painful condition. It is recognized by both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association as a psychological condition that, when untreated, can lead to devastating consequences including depression, anxiety, and suicide. The suffering is real. The stakes are high.

To deny treatment outright—to paint all medical intervention as "bodily mutilation" or an assault on nature—is to do violence to children in distress. The notion that human bodies are fixed in a natural state, and that deviation must be feared or corrected, is not a scientific truth. It is a cultural myth—one propped up by outdated traditions, rigid ideologies, and centuries of religious doctrine rather than biology or medicine.

Science teaches us that the human body is diverse by design. Genetic variation ensures that no two people are truly alike. Intersex individuals, those with congenital syndromes, or people with chronic illnesses all remind us that biological variation is not an aberration, but a norm. To declare some bodies “natural” and others not is to betray the very principles of evolutionary biology and medical ethics.

When we treat a child with an immune disorder like Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, we do so not because their body conforms to a standard, but because they are suffering. There is no moral debate—only a clear imperative to help. The same should apply to gender dysphoria. If a child is in pain, the role of medicine is to alleviate that pain, not to judge it through the lens of tradition or belief.

Religious teachings may offer moral guidance to many, but they are not substitutes for scientific understanding. Faith has its place—but when it dictates policy, especially around vulnerable groups like transgender youth, it can become a weapon rather than a shield. Belief should never block access to care.

Sociologically, we must reckon with the consequences of institutionalizing fear and myth. Denying care based on an idealized version of what a body is "meant" to be does not preserve innocence—it enforces ignorance. It marginalizes already at-risk youth and condemns them to silence, shame, and suffering.

The path forward must be one of nuanced compassion. Puberty blockers should not be handed out casually. But nor should they be demonized or banned under sweeping generalizations. Every case must be evaluated carefully, with psychologists, physicians, families, and—crucially—the child themselves involved in a thoughtful, ongoing dialogue.

To affirm identity is not to erase caution. To advocate caution is not to deny care. It is possible, and necessary, to hold both truths at once.

Let science guide us. Let ethics temper us. Let medicine heal us. And let society evolve with us.

In the end, our goal should not be to win a culture war—but to protect the well-being, dignity, and future of our children. Every child deserves the time and space to discover who they truly are—and the compassionate guidance to get there safely.

Breaking Through: Filipino Scientists Pioneer Early Detection Model That Could Save Thousands of Breast Cancer Lives

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

A Revolutionary Discovery in the Fight Against the Philippines' Deadliest Women's Cancer

In the sterile quiet of a University of the Philippines laboratory, Dr. Regina Joyce Ferrer peers into a microscope at what might look like tiny, insignificant clusters of cells floating in a petri dish. But these breast cancer organoids—miniature replicas of human tumors grown in controlled conditions—hold secrets that could transform how doctors treat one of the Philippines' most devastating diseases.

These laboratory-grown tissues have just helped unlock a medical breakthrough that could save thousands of Filipino women's lives.

The Silent Killer's Staggering Toll

The statistics paint a sobering picture of breast cancer's grip on Filipino women. In 2022 alone, over 33,000 new cases emerged across the archipelago—equivalent to roughly 90 women receiving this life-altering diagnosis every single day. More heartbreaking still, the disease claimed over 11,000 lives that same year, making it the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the Philippines, trailing only lung cancer.

But behind these numbers lies an even more sinister reality: many of these deaths could potentially be prevented if doctors had better tools to predict which cancers would turn aggressive and spread to other organs—a deadly process called metastasis.

The Race Against an Invisible Enemy

When breast cancer decides to become a killer, it doesn't announce its intentions. Instead, it begins a stealthy invasion, sending rouge cells through the body's lymphatic system and blood vessels in a process called lymphovascular invasion, or LVI. This biological betrayal serves as the cancer's highway system, allowing malignant cells to establish deadly colonies in distant organs.

For doctors, detecting LVI has been like trying to spot a burglar after the house has already been robbed. Current methods require surgical removal of the tumor and surrounding tissue—meaning physicians can only confirm this critical warning sign after invasive procedures have already taken place.

But what if they could identify this threat much earlier, before the first incision is ever made?

A Mathematical Crystal Ball

Dr. Michael Velarde and his team at the University of the Philippines Diliman College of Science have developed what amounts to a mathematical crystal ball—a predictive model that can detect lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer patients before they even undergo surgery.

"If we can detect LVI earlier, doctors could personalize patient treatment and improve their outcomes," explains Dr. Velarde, the study's lead researcher. "This could help avoid ineffective treatments and focus on strategies that work better for aggressive breast cancer."

The implications are staggering. Instead of waiting to discover whether a patient's cancer has begun its deadly migration, doctors could know from the very beginning which patients need the most aggressive treatment protocols.

Unraveling the Mystery of Drug Resistance

The research team's investigation began with a troubling observation from clinical data involving 625 breast cancer patients at Philippine General Hospital. They noticed a disturbing pattern: patients with lymphovascular invasion consistently responded poorly to standard anticancer drugs like doxorubicin and anthracyclines.

This finding led them down a scientific rabbit hole that would ultimately crack open one of breast cancer treatment's most vexing puzzles—why some tumors simply shrug off chemotherapy that should, by all medical logic, destroy them.

Working with tumor samples cultivated into organoids—essentially growing miniature versions of patients' cancers in laboratory conditions—the researchers confirmed their suspicions. LVI-positive organoids demonstrated remarkable resistance to the very drugs designed to eliminate them.

The Genetic Saboteurs

The answer lay hidden in the patients' genetic code. Dr. Velarde's team discovered that certain genes, particularly the UGT1 and CYP gene families, were significantly more active in patients with lymphovascular invasion. These genes function like microscopic recycling plants, breaking down anticancer drugs before they can do their job.

In patients with high activity of these genetic saboteurs, chemotherapy drugs are metabolized and eliminated so rapidly that they barely have time to attack the tumor. It's like trying to fill a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom—no matter how much you pour in, it disappears before it can accumulate enough to make a difference.

A 92% Accurate Prediction

Armed with this knowledge, the research team constructed a regression model that analyzes the expression patterns of these drug-resistance genes. The results were remarkable: their model correctly predicted LVI status 92% of the time, using only biopsy samples taken before any surgical intervention.

This level of accuracy represents a quantum leap in predictive oncology. For the first time, Filipino doctors could potentially know, with near-certainty, which of their breast cancer patients are harboring tumors primed for aggressive spread and drug resistance.

Hope with Realistic Expectations

Despite the breakthrough's promise, Dr. Velarde maintains scientific caution about the model's current limitations. "The model is still in its early stages of development and is not yet ready to replace current methods for diagnosing LVI," he emphasizes. "More validation studies are needed before this can be used in clinics."

The research team plans to expand their validation efforts by testing the gene signatures of larger groups of Filipino breast cancer patients. They're also investigating how UGT1 and CYP genes specifically contribute to lymphovascular invasion, with hopes of identifying drug combinations that could overcome this resistance in LVI-positive patients.

A Uniquely Filipino Solution

Perhaps most importantly, this breakthrough was designed with Filipino patients in mind. "Our approach can be implemented in the Philippines using locally available genomic technologies, making earlier detection and tailored treatment more accessible to Filipino patients," Dr. Velarde notes.

This represents more than just scientific advancement—it's a homegrown solution to a distinctly Filipino health crisis, developed by Filipino scientists for Filipino patients using technologies already available in Philippine hospitals.

The Road Ahead

The ultimate goal, according to Dr. Velarde, is both ambitious and deeply personal: "Our goal is to develop a practical test that can be used in Philippine hospitals to guide doctors in choosing the best treatment for each patient."

Imagine a future where every Filipino woman diagnosed with breast cancer receives a treatment plan tailored specifically to her tumor's genetic fingerprint. Where doctors know from day one whether standard chemotherapy will work, or whether more aggressive interventions are needed. Where the difference between life and death might come down to a genetic test that costs a fraction of current treatment protocols.

Beyond the Laboratory

While the organoids in Dr. Ferrer's laboratory continue to reveal their secrets, the real impact of this research will be measured not in published papers or scientific accolades, but in lives saved. Every percentage point improvement in treatment effectiveness translates to hundreds of Filipino mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives who might have a fighting chance against this disease.

The work represents a powerful example of how locally-developed research can address locally-specific health challenges. Rather than waiting for solutions developed in distant laboratories for different populations, Filipino scientists are pioneering approaches designed specifically for the genetic and clinical realities of Filipino patients.

A New Chapter in Cancer Care

As Dr. Velarde and his team prepare for the next phase of their validation studies, they carry with them the weight of tremendous possibility. Their mathematical model might seem abstract, but its potential impact is viscerally real—written in the stories of women who might live to see their children graduate, celebrate grandchildren's births, or simply enjoy another sunrise because their doctors had better tools to fight their disease.

The fight against breast cancer in the Philippines has entered a new chapter, one where prediction might prove more powerful than reaction, where personalized medicine becomes accessible rather than aspirational, and where Filipino innovation leads the charge against one of the nation's deadliest foes.

In laboratories across the University of the Philippines, the future of breast cancer treatment is taking shape, one organoid at a time. And for the 90 Filipino women who will receive their diagnosis today, that future can't come soon enough.