By Angie M. Rosales
The Daily Tribune
The Daily Tribune
Senate chief junks Guingona’s subpoena to Napoles; tensions flare
Tension among senators over the continuing probe into the alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam has escalated, spilling over even among known Palace allies following an unprecedented move taken by Senate President Franklin Drilon who bowed to the judgment not of a co-equal but a constitutional body, the Ombudsman.
Drilon willingly agreed with the Office of the Ombudsman in invoking its authority, having primary jurisdiction over the purported brains behind the scam, Janet Lim Napoles, barring the Senate blue ribbon committee from even serving her the issued subpoena and compelling her to testify before the Senate, much to the protestations of its chairman, Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona, and the prime mover of the probe, Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero.
Drilon and Guingona, partymates of President Aquino in the ruling Liberal Party (LP), are now engaged in a clash, with the latter vowing to assert his powers and authority as committee chairman in the issuance and enforcement of subpoena against Napoles.
An obviously irked Guingona lost no time in objecting passionately to Drilon’s decision which was his refusal to immediately sign the approval of his subpoena on Napoles as Drilon deferred to the position of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales whom the Senate chief sought for her comments on the matter. Guingona stated that “he will not allow anyone to diminish the stature and power of the blue ribbon committee.
“If the Senate President refuses to defend the power of the Senate, I must continue to defend it myself. The Senate cannot surrender its powers without a clear legal justification,” he said.
In a statement after Drilon’s press conference announcing Morales’ “decision”, the blue ribbon chairman made clear his strong protest over the former’s apparent application of a double standard in approving subpoenas concerning personalities embroiled in the alleged Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.
Drilon signed in full view of Senate reporters the subpoena sought by Guingona on Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to produce the so-called whistleblowers on Thursday’s hearing, before discussing the “opinion” of the Ombudsman, that summoning Napoles to testify at this time, “would be an exercise in futility.”
“If the Senate President can allow the whistleblowers to come before the Senate, I see no logical reason he should prevent the blue ribbon committee from summoning Napoles, the very reason this investigation is being conducted in the first place. Allowing the whistleblowers but disallowing Napoles from appearing before the Senate makes no logical sense.
“If we accept the invocation of the Ombudsman’s power to protect the confidentiality of matters before it, then the Senate President should not have signed the subpoena for the whistleblowers.
“The different but unreasonable treatment between the whistleblowers and Janet Lim-Napoles raises the obvious question: what is so confidential about Ms. Napoles’ possible testimony that it cannot be made under oath before the Senate blue ribbon committee? It just does not make logical and legal sense,” Guingona pointed out.
“We have to emphasize that the Ombudsman, in her letter, did not prohibit the Senate from calling Napoles. While we respect the Ombudsman’s advice, we cannot follow it. The Senate is independent from the Ombudsman. The Senate is not bound by the advice of the Ombudsman,” he said, underscoring the Constitutional provision giving the upper chamber the authority to conduct investigations in aid of legislation under Article VI.
“The separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branch is sacred to the survival of a true democracy. For as long as no encroachment in jurisdiction occurs, each branch must be allowed to exercise its power independently, without being chained to dilatory and baseless tactics,” he said, also citing a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Senate in such matters.
Guingona does not intend to issue another subpoena against Napoles as he is adamant in standing by his action.
“I have already stated in public that I am issuing it. I will issue it. No need (for a second subpoena). He (Drilon) has his prerogatives, I have my duty,” he stressed.
“This is not a special case. This is an unprecedented case. This is the first time and I’m against seeking the opinion of the Ombudsman,” the senator said, admitting before reporters that he could not comprehend “where this (invocation of Ombudsman rules) is coming from, but what is important is, I will not allow it.”
“(I will assert the authority of the committee), as far as I can and the furthest of my powers as head of the committee, to issue a subpoena,” he added.
“(I will assert the authority of the committee), as far as I can and the furthest of my powers as head of the committee, to issue a subpoena,” he added.
Escudero, in siding with Guingona said the provisions being cited by Morales, on what cases may not be made public, is applicable only to the Office of the Ombudsman.
“It’s the court, not the Office of the Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over Napoles because she’s currently facing charges over a supposed crime other than (the plunder charges filed by the DoJ) and it (Ombudsman) has not even reached the fact-finding stage at this point,” the senator explained in a separate interview.
“I’ve read the letter of the Ombudsman, she’s not in a position to determine what’s in aid of legislation or not or what Napoles can divulge because only Napoles can decide on that, aided by her lawyer, if she will invoke her right to remain silent. Again I completely disagree with the opinion expressed by the Office of the Ombudsman on this matter and I think the Senate should decide independently on this.
“Never in the history of the Senate, as far as I can remember that a case pending before the Sandiganbayan impeded our investigation. Secondly, it’s not the Office of the Ombudsman that’s the subject of our subpoena. Also, the prohibition on the disclosure of the Ombudsman is applicable only when there is already a preliminary investigation and not when there’s no fact-finding yet which is the situation now,” he added.
Escudero said it’s likely that the matter will be discussed by them and hopefully, will to be resolved in a caucus in the days to come.
Escudero said it’s likely that the matter will be discussed by them and hopefully, will to be resolved in a caucus in the days to come.
Besides the issue on Napoles, Escudero was also in unison with Guingona in lamenting the matter of apparent “exclusivity” in being cautious on Napoles’ subpoena and not on the whistleblowers.
“That was unusual because we should have also sought the opinion of the Ombudsman on the whistleblowers who actually appeared before the Ombudsman before,” he commented.
While it’s indispensable on the part of the Senate chief to affix his “approval” in the issuance of a subpoena, the committee chair and panel members cannot override it.
“I don’ think that’s in the rules. If there’s anything that can override it (Drilon’s refusal to sign the subpoena for approval), it’s the plenary that can take action, not the committee,” he explained, adding that as a general rule in parliamentary practice, the Senate as an entire body can vote to uphold or not Drilon’s position.
“I don’ think that’s in the rules. If there’s anything that can override it (Drilon’s refusal to sign the subpoena for approval), it’s the plenary that can take action, not the committee,” he explained, adding that as a general rule in parliamentary practice, the Senate as an entire body can vote to uphold or not Drilon’s position.
“We must remember that we are a government of laws and not of men. I appreciate the passion of Guingona, as chairman of the blue ribbon committee, to investigate the pork barrel scam in aid of legislation given the clamor of the public for more revelations.”
However, my attention was called last Monday about the rule in the Office of the Ombudsman against public disclosure of the cases pending in the Office of the Ombudsman,” Drilon claimed.
Morales, in her three-page letter to Drilon, ruled that it is not advisable for Napoles to testify now before Senate probers on what she knows about the alleged scam, citing the filing of the National Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Levi Baligod before the Office of the Ombudsman on Sept. 16, 2013 cases for plunder and other offenses against legislators and Ms. Napoles et al.
“It has been informed that these cases represent the ‘initial’ batch of PDAF-related cases against legislators and Ms. Napoles et al. There are also other PDAF-related cases involving other government officials in conspiracy with other private persons which are pending investigation by the Office.
“The Ombudsman has ruled that the appearance of Ms. Napoles could prejudice the case in effect. There is no such finding in the case of the whistleblowers,” Drilon claimed.
Prior to these “exchanges” between Drilon and Guingona, the latter was obviously provoked by Justice chief Leila de Lima’s decision to appear before the hearing without any of the whistleblowers.
Based on Guingona’s narration of facts, De Lima, at the last minute, backed out from an earlier “agreement” they reached during a meeting last week to produce additional witnesses or whistleblowers, even arranging a hearing yesterday to accommodate the witnesses’ request, instead of the usual Thursday proceedings.
Guingona said he was taken aback when he received a letter from De Lima on the eve of the called hearing that she cannot fulfill her promise due to the “rules of the Ombudsman.”
While De Lima tried to reason out, even tried to convince Guingona that she’s not out to impress that she’s invoking the rules of the Ombudsman even as she invited the “attention of this honorable body that under section 2, rule 5 of the omnibus rules of procedure as embodied in administrative order 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman, prior to such final action meaning a final action on the complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, no publicity shall be made of matters of which may adversely affect national security or public interest, prejudice to safety of witnesses or the disposition of the case or unduly expose persons complained vs juridical or public censure.”
Guingona gave De Lima a tongue-lashing, even pointing out that the precedent cases in the past that upheld the authority of the Senate.
“And what you have done is unprecented. Unprecedented. And in my view you have attempted to undermine and diminish the power of the Senate blue ribbon. I’m very very disappointed and I do not agree with ur stand! I am therefore issuing a subpoena for you, directed to you, to have the whistleblowers appear before the Senate blue ribbon on Thurs day10 o’clock in the morning,” the senator said before calling for the suspension of the hearing even as De Lima attempted to speak.
She apologized to Guingona later.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
RELATED STORY:
Drilon may face ouster after subpoena rebuff
By Angie M. Rosales
The Daily Tribune
The Daily Tribune
Senate President Franklin Drilon’s decision to withhold his signature on the subpoena that the Senate blue ribbon committee wanted issued on Janet Lim Napoles, the detained alleged brains of the P10-billion pork barrel scam may lead to his ouster as chamber head, his fellow senators warned.
Drilon argued that he was deferring to the opinion of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales that Napoles’ appearance may affect the ongoing review being conducted on the various complaints filed including those against Napoles in connection with the pork barrel scam but Senators are insisting on the Constitutional power of the Senate to conduct inquiries.
Critics of Drilon, who is a chief ally of the President Aquino, equated his refusal to compel Napoles’ to attend the Senate hearing to a cover up. Drilon is being accused of also having close ties with Napoles.
“It was out of prudence and caution that I decided to defer to the advice and recommendation of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales not to require, at this time, Janet Lim-Napoles appearance before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. While my decision appears unpopular to media and a public eager to see Napoles grilled by the Blue Ribbon Committee, I have decided on the side of caution. I would rather err on the side of prudence,” Drilon said.
Senators Teofisto Guingona III and Francis Escudero said the responsibilities of the Senate and the Ombudsman are distinct and that summoning witnesses to the Senate probe will not affect the Ombudsman’s functions since it is still on the fact-finding stage of the cases related to the pork barrel scam.
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III said the controversy resulting from Drilon’s refusal to sign the subpoena on Napoles may polarize the Senate and hinted that if more than half of the members of the chamber of at least 13 will go against Drilon’s decision, his hold on the senate presidency may be placed in peril.
“If 13 members of the Senate or more will disagree with him on this issue and they consider this a serious issue, that more than 13 (senators) would be enough to effect a change in the Senate president. That’s why this has also political considerations which should be discussed by the senators informally in a caucus,” Pimentel said.
The senator reiterated the same position during an interview with Senate reporters, saying that the apparent “clashing” views of Drilon and Guingona, chairman of the blue ribbon committee, could have serious consequensces, not only in continuing public investigation on the pork barrel scam but the status of leadership in the upper chamber.
“They belong to one political party (Liberal Party) and belong in the majority (bloc) and if there is a disagreement to this matter, we should hold a caucus,” he said.
“If we will still have a divided opinion even after holding a caucus, then what is the Senate president for? We elected him there to make the hard decisions, then we have to respect the decisions of the Senate president,” he pointed out.
Pimentel said it is only the Senate president who is empowered to issue subpoenas as committee chairman, if need be. “I respect the power lodged in his office but of course, he has to listen to the position of each member,” he said.
Pimentel said it is only the Senate president who is empowered to issue subpoenas as committee chairman, if need be. “I respect the power lodged in his office but of course, he has to listen to the position of each member,” he said.
Pimentel said the matter should be resolved soon and prevent the possibility of the issue being brought on the floor for voting in the plenary as this could prove to be precarious for Drilon, especially if some senators would be willing to call for a reorganization of the Senate based on this issue alone.
Escudero cited the Senate’s “higher constitutional duty” which precludes the Ombudsman from dictating “upon the Senate what is in aid of legislation and what is not.”
Drilon supposedly based his decision on Morales’ letter saying a Napoles testimony in the Senate probe would not produce “complete, nay reliable information that legislation intends to affect or change.”
Escudero, however, said the Ombudsman Act or Republic Act 6770 that Morales cited in her letter as being against publicizing the issue does not apply to the probe.
“It is still in the stage of fact finding,” he said adding that the law will apply when there is already preliminary investigation.
The Palace, however, sided with Drilon on preventing Napoles from appearing in the Senate hearing. Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said the Ombudsman has its rules.
“The charges are now before the Ombudsman to study and to look into. The Ombudsman, by the way, is an independent body. So upon Carpio-Morales’ own discretion, they will decide what charges will be filed,” Lacierda said.
“It’s a choice. It’s a decision taken by the Senate President. It’s the way they view things,” Lacierda said.
“It’s a choice. It’s a decision taken by the Senate President. It’s the way they view things,” Lacierda said.
“You know, there are…This case involves a lot of personalities, I suppose, and the… Secretary Leila de Lima also feels that she had to defer to the Ombudsman because, unlike other cases, charges have already been filed here,” he said.
“It’s a question of the interpretation of the rules. The Palace does not have a position there. We’ve stated that we have no position there,” Lacierda said.
The Ombudsman said inviting Napoles to the inquiry might just be “an exercise in futility” since the controversial businesswoman has publicly denied involvement in the alleged scam.
Last Tuesday, Senate Blue Ribbon committee chair Teofisto Guingona Jr. scolded Justice Secretary Leila de Lima for failure to bring the whistleblowers for the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam during the hearing. He insisted that the testimony of Napoles was needed in the investigation.
De Lima invoked the Ombudsman rules when she opted not to bring the witnesses.
According to Lacierda, the Palace wants criminal prosecution on those responsible for the scam and that the alleged brains behind the scam is already facing charges.
“Are we happy with just a Blue Ribbon Committee investigation? It’s good that it will have one. But is that the end-all and be-all of all this revelation? Will that revelation bring us to something closer to criminal prosecution?” he said.
“What the Palace is after is criminal prosecution because at the end of the day, someone must be held accountable,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment