agreed to lift sanctions during his meeting with kimjong—un in singapore, as well as stopping american military exercises with south korea, as the north has long demanded. state media in pyongyang is also claiming both leaders have accepted invitations to visit each other‘s capitals. the british government has averted a damaging defeat for its brexit strategy. a mix of last—minute promises and negotiations persuaded a majority of 26 members of parliament to reject an amendment to the eu withdrawal bill. the amendment would have given parliament wide powers over the brexit process. france and italy have exchanged sharp words over hundreds of migrants on a ship in the mediterranean. the french president accused the italian government of cynicism and irresponsibility for refusing to let them land in italy. around 600 people are on board, including pregnant women and children. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk,

i'm stephen sackur. rodrigo duterte has been president of the philippines for two years. his war on drugs has cost thousands of lives, his human rights record has attracted international condemnation and prompted charges of authoritarianism. and yet he has an approval rating unheard of in most democracies. my guest today was until last month chiefjustice of the philippines. maria lourdes sereno was removed from the supreme court by her fellow justices. was that a victory against corruption, or a devastating, duterte—inspired blow to democracy? maria lourdes sereno,

welcome to hardtalk. hello, high, stephen. iam glad hello, high, stephen. i am glad to be with you. well, it is a pleasure to have you on the programme. i am mindful that, just a month or so ago, you were the chiefjustice of the philippines supreme court. now you are removed from the court, and you are removed from the court, and you are removed from the court, and you are perhaps the most polarising individual in your country today. are you relishing being in the political spotlight? to the contrary, stephen. there is nothing

to really be joyful about in my situation. but what is happening right now, with respect to my countrymen, is that they are finding their voices now, and because my situation highlighted many of the structural problems in my country, especially in the area ofjustice, people are saying that there should be greater accountability from every public official. and that means a great dealfor the public official. and that means a great deal for the fight for democracy in my country, stephen. so that's the bright spot there. well, interesting you put it like that, andi interesting you put it like that, and i would say that your case has certainly brought the judicial system in the philippines under very close scrutiny. so let's go back to basics, and start at the very beginning. do you think it is credible to talk about a truly independent judiciary credible to talk about a truly independentjudiciary in the philippines? i think, in independentjudiciary in the philippines? ithink, in the independentjudiciary in the philippines? i think, in the present context, this president came in very

strongly, attacking many institutions. the attack on the judiciary was preceded by horse i'm a penny carried outwith, attacks on different institutions. you could see that at first he laid out the basic premise that, during his time asa basic premise that, during his time as a prosecutor, he was used to planting evidence and selling intrigue. so i think that resonates very well with what has been happening to some of our supposedly independent institutions. you could see this in the energy regulatory commission, in the commission of higher education, in the commission of elections, in the judiciary, and he also attacked the commission on human rights and the ombudsman. so these relentless attacks basically offered him a pattern of trying to wea ken offered him a pattern of trying to weaken democratic institutions. you say i have always stayed away from politics. you clearly didn't always stay away from politics. i'm just looking at several public pronouncements you made after mr

aquino was replaced by president duterte, announcements and public comments which many in the philippines took as directly critical of president duterte and his strategy. for example, in his war, his crackdown on drugs terminals, you went out in public with your concern about the way in which lists were being published of judges, senior police people, senior security officials, who were suspected of involvement in the drugs trade —— drugs criminals. why did you decide, as a judge, to make such public comments? you know, it is not a political statement at all, stephen. to the contrary, itjust was a very diplomatic reminder that every official is bound to observe the constitutional guarantees of due process. i had a judicial either i was leaving. i must make sure that, in the face of a very strong presidency, the chiefjustice will

weigh in and say, please, mr president, do not treat the judiciary this way. everyjudge has the right to due process, at the moment you pronounce their names as suspects in a narco list, you effectively destroy the efficacy as judges. they were forced to go into hiding because of the fear that their lives were in danger. i have a duty to discharge, stephen. and i did that not only with respect to the drug campaign, but also with respect to an attempt by the house of representatives to take to task certain of the justices of the court of appeals for a decision they rendered. i have a duty to always protect the independence of the duty shri, not political at all. well, you say not political at all. that is not the way mr duterte saw it. when you made your comments about these list, and also you advised officials not to hand themselves in without an official warrant, duterte said that you were putting him in a

corner. and then he got even more angry after you made some public comments about his decision to impose martial law right across mindanao, because you said in some places martial law is applicable but in other places i don't think you should be doing it. again, in the united states, in western europe, chief justices of the united states, in western europe, chiefjustices of the supreme court would not be making these very high profile, public, political comments. in the face of very strong pronouncements, where the president himself seems to be leading us towards a system where basically he thought that he could disregard the constitutional guarantees of due process to ourjudges, and even our citizens, i am forced, i am forced, to remind everyone of the constitution. remember, stephen, the fight for our democracy is an ongoing one. it is not as if we have a very stable system. the democracy

in my country must regard it at all times. well, talking of democracy, let us not forget mr duterte won a thumping majority at the polls in 2016. you were an appointed judge. he had a mandate, for example, to impose a security crackdown on mindanao. he also had a very clear mandate to conduct his tough wallasey on drugs. now, just a slight correction, he did not win a majority, he won a plurality. now, with respect to whether an unelected judge can weigh in, of course it is the duty of the constitutionally designated officers to weigh in went their mandate requires that they way it. and it is not about politics. it's about doing the right thing, and everyone, every filipino, must a lwa ys and everyone, every filipino, must always be reminded that the constitution is there precisely to protect the lives and property of the innocent, the poor, especially the innocent, the poor, especially the helpless amongst us. would you

also agree that integrity is of the utmost importance for any very senior legal official? i mean, not least, of course, the chiefjustice of the supreme court? and, as you, it seems, became more and more of an enemy, as perceived by duterte, he even used that word, there was great scrutiny put upon your own personal affairs, and it seems, u nfortu nately, affairs, and it seems, unfortunately, that your personal affairs couldn't stand up to that form of scrutiny, and real problems we re form of scrutiny, and real problems were exposed. you know, the reason why i am asking, in fact, insisting several times, that we proceed to trial before the senate impeachment court is to prove whether there is any truth to any of the allegations that were hurled against me. remember, stephen, last year he already was insinuating that i was doing wrong with certain parts of the front of the court. the

challenge was always the same for my part. challenge was always the same for my pa rt. let's challenge was always the same for my part. let's go to the senate impeachment court, let's hear the evidence. as of now, i have been denied by right to due process during the housejustice committee hearing. i was denied the right to be represented by a lawyer, and then i was saying, if you are so convinced about your case, go ahead and bring it to the senate, where there is a full—blown trial. but that was aborted. so how can anyone continue to maintain any of the allegations against me? all of these are gossip, all of these unfounded allegations as of now. well, they are not all gossip, are they? and you can maybe help me clarify some of them right now, and i'm sure the people of the philippines will be extremely interested in your a nswe rs. extremely interested in your answers. is it true or it not true that, on roughly 17 years out of 20, when you were a senior academic in a senior post at the university of the philippines, you did not file the mandatory statements on assets, liabilities and net worth? is it

true that you didn't, or did you? not true at all, stephen. in fact, if you are going to read about the dissent, it basically shows, and in the motion for consideration, that i had a habit of filing these. remember, stephen, in a certain way, and the dissent is will show this, these are not grounds for impeachment. impeachment grounds are a lwa ys impeachment. impeachment grounds are always related to the discharge of the high public office that is being questioned. it has nothing to do, at all, with those. that was part of my past life, in which i filed the mandatory requirement. well, how come at one point... how come at one point you seemed to be saying that yes, you had failed them, but you couldn't find any evidence that you had filed an? you seemed to have lost the paperwork. i mean, that seems very strange. lost the paperwork. i mean, that seems very strange. no, stephen, that's not strange at all. in fact, we have several cases in the supreme

court, and one case addictively stands out, where a sheriff for 18 yea rs was stands out, where a sheriff for 18 years was not able to show anything in his record, and then there was a contradictory evidence where the clerk of a court said, no, actually, he had some of the records. and the court said, no, that the evidence was already enough for us to say that the presumption is in his favour. there was no positive evidence brought forward about his finding. 0k, will clearly this is highly detailed, and as you say, this has never been tested in an impeachment trial in the senate. but what i do want to just asked you before we move off the detailed the broader point is, this extravagant and lavish lifestyle that the government has accused you of conducting, including the purchase ofa conducting, including the purchase of a special toyota landcruiser occurs you didn't like the official car that you were provided with, because it wasn't grand enough, and your tendency to enjoy business travel and lavish hotels, are you

telling me there's no truth to any of this at all? no truth. you don't have a toyota land cruiser? when you are chiefjustice? stephen, no, stephen, the rules say that whatever security vehicle the president is entitled to, i am entitled to. it got full court approval, so that's the end of it. now, with respect of lavish hotels, the only hotel that they could say that was a 5—star hotel was the hotel room that was used for the signing of the asean a chord by ten chiefjustices. so it was already used as a function room, at night nobody slept in its, so i slept in it. so that doesn't amount to much, stephen, and we got it at a very huge block discount. and the third, with respect to business travel, of course business travel, stephen, is de rigueurfor someone who is entitled to the same accommodations, because my position

is already considered as one of the five highest offices in the country. all right, well, i'm sure the filipino people will be glad you got a special discount on your 5—star hotel, so let's not go into that any more, but let's get to the nub of the issue. and another the issue is this. but when push came to the shove, never mind the impeachment process in the legislature, in the end, your fellowjustices on the supreme court clearly lost confidence in you, because when the solicitor general of the philippines filed the petition against you, eight, that is a majority, of your fellow justices on the eight, that is a majority, of your fellowjustices on the supreme court decided that you were disqualified, that you simply were not legitimate in your post as chiefjustice. now, you talk about the independence of the judiciary. these were your fellowjudges, the judiciary. these were your fellow judges, who the judiciary. these were your fellowjudges, who totally the judiciary. these were your fellow judges, who totally lost confidence in you. stephen, there is only one ray of

removing that. that is the impeachment, that is the senate. please, and so my question. my question is this, the truth is you lost the confidence of your l0 justices, that surely disqualifies you are being an effective chief justice of the philippines. now, stephen, if you are going to look at the point i said in the motion for consideration, five of those justices testified against me. that despite already. so under the code ofjudicial conduct, they should be inhibiting themselves from this proceeding. now, one said that because of my faith i cannot sit in office. so, there were only two mac that i have not asked to be

inhibited because of their prior announcements that really voted against me. six said i cannot be removed except by an impeachment vote, an impeachment conviction from the senate. hang on, there is surely a simple point you. throughout this interview you have proclaimed the importance of respecting the integrity ofjudges and the judicial system. here we have a supreme court where a majority of the judges think you are disqualified from office. and then suddenly you declare that is not legitimate. surely your problem is is that york fellow judges simply lost confidence in your integrity. —— your fellow judges. you know, that is not true at all. there is one important scholar who said the reason why it you require impeachable officials to go through an impeachment process is that you have to project, protect

the justices even in the court. time is moving on, what are you going to do when i'm at it the supreme court reviews your appeal of their decision to get rid of you, what if they uphold that? will you at that point, except that the decision of the court is final and you will give up the court is final and you will give up or will you continue your struggle to keep, or at least get back to your old job? you know, these questions is much larger than myjob. what these questions is much larger than my job. what right these questions is much larger than myjob. what right now hangs in the balance is our democratic way of life. at the beginning and tried to give you the context of how so many institutions of our democracy have been attacked. during my find, so many people have come to me the asset you have a voice who has spoken that injustices, keep on speaking about that and the larger

issues in our country. stephen, this issues in our country. stephen, this issueis issues in our country. stephen, this issue is not about me, about whether iam issue is not about me, about whether i am popular or not, this is about doing the right thing. there is a constitution, there have been laws that outline when the chiefjustice can be removed, my point is they have not been observed. so if i lose, as you say, what am i going to do? whatam lose, as you say, what am i going to do? what am i lose, as you say, what am i going to do? whatam i going to lose, as you say, what am i going to do? what am i going to do now? i think the fight for our country ‘s constitutional way of life is much more important than just one position. despite is much larger, i speak... if i may position. despite is much larger, i speak... ifi may say position. despite is much larger, i speak... if i may say so, you are saying, sounding a diehard opponent of duterte then you are sounding like a chiefjustice of the supreme court. 0pposition politicians have jumped on your case, i will quote a couple of them. one called it "a

direct stab at the heart of our constitution". and other opposition spokesman said "we are now a heartbeat away from the death of our democracy". another called it" a fascist raid on the judiciary. do you align yourself with all of these comments? in other words, are you now looking to become a leader of the opposition yourself? that is a very difficult question that must be a nswered very difficult question that must be answered only when a correct process has been sufficiently followed. and why it is, i see the group of our problems as an inability to empower the little people. those who, in their daily struggle, find themselves at the end of their rope. usually they are relatives —— their relatives get killed from having been suspected of a crime. they have

no one to run too and i have been finding that more and more of them have been coming to me. so what does this mean for our country? this means that there are so many things, so many problems ofjustice that need to be articulated. now, the correct authorisation of my role is something that other people have generously helped themselves to. i am not about to correct myself as a politician, as an opposition figure. what i understand is that right now, my present role is that there is a voice that must be heard, people are asking me to speak to them and i have said yes, whether i am retained asa have said yes, whether i am retained as a chiefjustice, or whether i am removed as a chief habitatjustice. —— chiefjustice. removed as a chief habitatjustice. -- chiefjustice. the most recent

survey in the philippines have roderigo duterte with a satisfaction rating of plus 70. truly extraordinary figures. he must be the most popular politician in all of the democratic or so—called democratic world, as far as i can see. are you not aware that the vast majority of filipinos seem to actually support his top security crackdown on the drugs criminals, they seem to support his efforts to bring peace to men do now, they seem to support his economic policies, which delivered last year almost 7% growth. this is a man who is, in political terms, extraordinarily effective. so are you saying that the voices who are saying that there isa the voices who are saying that there is a constitution and the poor must have their voice, according to the rule of law, those voices must be still simply because there is

popularity in the present regime? i think it is a duty on everyone who has the privilege to speak for the voiceless, to so speak. and i think that as a possible role. whether you say that i am sounding like a politician or not, i don't do much weight on that point, but what i know is that there is work that must be done to help the people. know is that there is work that must be done to help the peoplelj know is that there is work that must be done to help the people. i don't for one second mean it to belittle the very serious questions there are about president duterte's adherence to human rights law and to the basic norms of behaviour. i think that is an important debate. i would say to you that accurate too has been welcomed to the american white house. the philippines are still regarded as a partner by the european union, who offered economic assistance. if you look at the international reputation of the philippines today, yes, there are

great concerns about human rights but still most countries believe that the philippines appears to be heading in the right direction. are you saying that the international community should somehow be isolating duterte and treating him asa pariah? isolating duterte and treating him as a pariah? no, i am not saying that at all, stephen. what i say is that at all, stephen. what i say is that the filipino people must again to reclaim some territory in the area of constitutional rights. there must be more room for dissenting voices and i think that, stephen, i think that your analysis that has been presented about the high level of popularity, i really don't know because some of our problems seem to because some of our problems seem to be getting in the way of really reaching a consensus in the country. for example, the economic effects of the recent tax reform programme, the incursions of china. these are not

raising alarm bells separately from the number of killings that are happening in my country. so it is possible that there is a confluence of factors that will require more filipinos to rethink their position. your text say that you are a very calculated political operator and that if you cannot get back the chief justices office, that if you cannot get back the chiefjustices office, you will run for the senate and ultimately your ambition is to run for the presidency. is that true? no. no. if thatis presidency. is that true? no. no. if that is the question, no. i am not someone who plots and plans these things. i have never been, really, someone who has sought a political office, even in the campus. so no, it is farfrom me office, even in the campus. so no, it is far from me to office, even in the campus. so no, it is farfrom me to be office, even in the campus. so no, it is far from me to be calculating a long that line. we will end it there. i thank you very much to joining me on hardtalk. maria

lourdes sereno, thank you very much. 0k stephen, wellcome! —— 0k stephen, welcome! hello there. wednesday's weather will start off innocuously enough, but there is trouble on the horizon. after some sunny spells through the day, things as we go into the evening will turn very wet and very windy, unusually windy for the time of year. after what has been a relatively quiet spell of weather, thejetstream is breaking back from the west, bringing a lot of cloud from the atlantic. and, where you see these dips in the cloud structure, that is where we are developing some areas of low pressure.

this one is going to bring a very wet and windy wednesday night. but, for the time being, we're starting the day under the influence of a ridge of high pressure. so we're going to see a lot of dry weather and some good spells of sunshine through the day. cloud amounts will tend to increase from the west as the day wears on, could just be the odd shower, and then eventually we'll see some rain just splashing into the western side of northern ireland and the west of scotland, the winds starting to pick up here, as well. but ahead of that wet weather, it's going to feel quite pleasant, with highs of 21 or 22 degrees. now, as we go into wednesday evening, it'll stay dry across much of england and wales. but, for northern ireland and scotland, this rain will begin to pile in. you can see the dark blue colours indicating some really heavy downpours, all courtesy of this area of low pressure. quite a deep low, you can see the isobars really squeezing together. that shows that we're going to see some very windy weather indeed. as we go into the first part of thursday morning, we'll see the outbreaks of rain moving eastwards,

and very strong and gusty winds for northern ireland, the far north of england and particularly scotland, where there could be wind gusts of 60 mph or more, even for places like glasgow or edinburgh. that could well cause some travel disruption for thursday morning's rush hour, gales or severe gales, so do tune into your bbc local radio station to find out if there are any impacts where you are. now, the wet and windy weather will slowly ease as we go on through the day on thursday. so aside from a few showers, especially in the north, it's actually going to turn into a decent day. good spells of sunshine and temperatures — well, cool and fresh across northern areas, but actually, down towards the south—east, still getting up to around 22 degrees. then we look ahead to friday, a quieter day with light winds. some spells of sunshine around. some outbreaks of patchy rain, perhaps, across northern ireland and the north—west of scotland. best of the sunshine likely to be found towards the south—east, the highest of the temperatures here as well. and then, as we look towards the weekend, it's certainly not going to be completely dry. there will be some showers around at times. there should equally be

some spells of sunshine, and temperatures in places up into the 20s. this is the briefing, i'm sally bundock. our top story: north korea claims president trump agreed to lift sanctions at tuesday's summit with kimjong—un, and both leaders could be seeing more of each other in the future. another difficult day for the british government. after avoiding one damaging defeat over brexit, it faces a fresh round of challenges. and welcome to the republic of north macedonia. a new name brings an end to decades of deadlock with greece. an $85 billion media marriage gets the green light. the tie—up between at&t and time warner will shake up the industry for years to come. in business briefing, we will have the latest from new york on the massive media deal that trump didn't want,