the us secretary of state is in asia for talks after this week's summit between donald trump and kim jong—un. speaking in south korea, mike pompeo said the us expects "major" north korean disarmament by the end of 2020. he travels to beijing later. the un security council will meet laterfor urgent talks on the situation in yemen. saudi—led forces have launched a major offensive on the port of hodeidah, leading to fears humanitarian supplies could be disrupted. german prosecutors have fined volkswagen more than a billion dollars over its cheating on diesel emissions tests. the public prosecutor found vw sold more than ten million cars with emissions—test—cheating software. scientists are warning that antarctica is shedding ice at an accelerating rate. now on bbc news it's time for 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, in manila,

welcome to hardtalk. hello. hi, stephen. i'm glad to be with you. well, it is a pleasure to have you on the programme. i'm mindful that, just a month or so ago, you were the chief justice of the philippines supreme court. now, 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 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 deal for the fight for democracy in my country, stephen. so that's the bright spot there. well, 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 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, or simultaneously

carried outwith, attacks on different institutions. you could see that at first he laid out the 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 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, pronouncements 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 criminals, you went out in public with your concern about the way in which lists were being published ofjudges, senior police people, senior security officials, who were suspected of involvement in the drugs trade. why did you decide, as a judge, to make such public comments? you know, it's 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 idea i was leading.

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. every charge has the right to due process. but the moment you pronounce their names as suspects in a narco list, you effectively destroy the efficacy ofjudges. they were forced to go into hiding because of the fear that their lives were in danger. i had 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 judiciary. 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 lists, 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 he should be doing it. again, in 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's not as if we have a very stable system. the democracy in my country must be guarded 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 policy 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's the duty of the constitutionally designated officers to weigh in when their mandate requires that they way it. and it's not about politics, it's about doing the right thing. 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 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 chief justice

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, unfortunately, that your personal affairs couldn't stand up to that form of scrutiny, and real problems were exposed. you know, the reason why i'm 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. let's go to the senate impeachment court. let's hear the evidence. as of now, i have been denied my right to due process

during the house justice committee hearing. i was denied the right to be represented by a lawyer. and then i was saying, if you're 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 are 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 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 dissents will show this, these are not grounds for 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 filed them, but you couldn't find any evidence that you had filed them? you seemed to have 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 particularly 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, well, 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 ask you before we move off the detail, the broader point is this extravagant and lavish lifestyle that the government has accused you of conducting, including the purchase of a special toyota landcruiser, because 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 didn't have a toyota landcruiser, when you were chief justice? 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 five—star hotel was the hotel room that was used for the signing of the asean accord by ten chiefjustices. so it was already used as a function room. at night, nobody slept in it, 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 five—star hotel, so let's not go into that anymore. but let's get to the nub of the issue, and the nub of the issue is this. that, when push came to 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 quo warranto petition against you, eight, that's a majority, of your fellow justices 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 fellow judges, who totally lost confidence in you. stephen, there is only one way of removing that. that is the impeachment, that is the senate. please, answer my question.

my question is this, the truth is you lost the confidence of yourjustices, 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's five 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, this is surely

a simple point. 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 your fellowjudges simply lost confidence in your integrity. you know, that is not true at all. there is one important scholar who said the reason why you require impeachable officials to go through an impeachment process is that you have to protect the justices even from themselves in the court. time is moving on.

quick questions here. 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 — or will you continue your struggle to keep, or at least get back — your old job? you know, these questions is much larger than myjob. what right now hangs in the balance is our democratic way of life. at the beginning i was trying 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 and said you have a voice who has spoken that injustices in our country, keep on speaking about that and the larger issues in our country. stephen, this 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 outlines when a 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? 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. this fight is much larger, i speak... if i may say so, you are sounding like a politician — 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. 0ne called it "a direct stab at the heart of our constitution". another opposition spokesman said "we are now a heartbeat away from the death of our democracy." another called it "a fascist raid on thejudiciary." 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 answered only when a correct process has been sufficiently followed. and by this, i see the root 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 their relatives get killed from being suspected of committing a crime. they have no one to run to 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 characterisation of my role is something that other people have generously helped themselves to. i am not about to characterise 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 as a chiefjustice, or whether i am removed as a chiefjustice. that mission for

justice must continue. the most recent survey in the philippines have roderigo duterte with a satisfaction rating of +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 tough security crackdown on the drugs criminals, they seem to support his efforts to bring peace to mindanao, 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 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 is a possible role. whether you say that i am sounding like a politician or not, well 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. i don't for one second mean 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 a very important debate. i would say to you that duterte 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 grave 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 as a pariah? no, i am not saying that at all, stephen. what i say is that the filipino people must begin to reclaim some

territory in the area of constitutional rights. there must be more room for dissenting voices and i think, 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 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 aren't 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 critics say that you are a very calculated political operator and that if you cannot get back the chief justices office, you will run for the senate and ultimately your ambition is to run for the presidency. is that true? 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 to be calculating along that line. we will end there. i thank you very much tojoining me on hardtalk. maria lourdes sereno,

thank you very much. 0k stephen, welcome! hello once again. i know it's the second week injune, but i have to start this particular show by reminding you we've got a named storm on our hands, and there's an amber warning from the met office for gusts of wind on thursday morning which could, in extremis, get up to around 60mph if not 70 mph. where's all that coming from? this great lump of cloud hurtling towards us and deepening all the while and as it does so, quite a vigorous area of low pressure for the time of year. it's got into the wrong place in the atmosphere and it's been deepening all the while in recent hours. such that as we get

on through the day, we will find a real squeeze in those isobars initially working its way through northern ireland, but then on through exposed parts of scotland and through the north of england as well. but, with all the cloud and the wind around, it won't be a cold start to the new day on thursday, but it will certainly be a wet one for some and certainly a very windy one as well. i'll show you now the strength of the gusts, and there you are, in the central belt of scotland, some of those gusts could be up at around 60mph, as i say, if not 70 mph. gales and severe gales quite widely across northern britain. travel disruption is distinctly possible, bbc local radio will be all over that, i assure you. even further south, it will be a noticeably windy day after a fairly quiet spell of weather. even here, as the weather front tumbles its way ever further to the south and east, we'll find a little bit of rain. there's no doubt about it the bulk

of rain will be found in scotland but i think rain becomes less and less of a problem and slowly, slowly, oh so slowly, especially in the northern half of britain, does the strength of the wind. with the sun coming out in the afternoon for many of us, we'll push the temperatures into the low 20s at the very best. friday thankfully a quieter day across the british isles, but notice the prospect of rain in the northern ireland and the possibility of downpours in dumfries and galloway, ayrshire and the western end of the central belt. what news of the weekend? none too promising to start with. look at this, another little bit of area of low pressure bringing cloud, wind and rain towards particularly initially the western side of the british isles, maybe spreading north and east through time as we get on through saturday. perhaps the best of the sunshine up into the north—eastern corner of scotland.

not a complete write—off, i assure you, because sunday looks a drier and finer day as we finish off the weekend. take care. hello and a very good morning from singapore. i'm rico hizon. the american secretary of state is in seoul, saying there's a lot of work left to do on the deal with north korea. saudi—led forces attack the main rebel—held port in yemen, threatening vital aid supplies for millions. a new study says antarctica lost three—trillion tons of ice because of global warming in the past quarter—century. and around the world in five years. we meet the youngest man to visit every country on earth.