DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 05 November) – Officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP), which is headed by Sara Duterte, did not show up during the investigation conducted by the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, November 5, questioning the authority of the committee to conduct the probe.
In a position paper received by the committee on Tuesday, the OVP officials said that the ongoing House inquiry is not conducted “in aid of legislation” and that the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability “has no jurisdiction to make an inquiry.”
They also maintained that as officials of the OVP, they “may decline the invitations of the committee and validly refuse to take part in the proceedings.”
The OVP executives invited as resource speakers in the inquiry on the alleged misuse of public funds include Atty. Zuleika Lopez, who is OVP chief of staff, Atty. Rosalynne Sanchez, Atty. Sunshine Charry A. Fajarda, Lemuel Ortonio, Julieta Villaderey, Gina Acosta, and Edward Fajarda.
Last October 17, the committee asked Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla to issue a lookout bulletin order against these officials “to monitor their movements and prevent any potential attempt to flee the country, which could significantly hinder our investigation and the broader efforts to uphold the integrity of public service.”
In snubbing the inquiry, the OVP officials also reasoned that the committee’s invitation dated November 1 and sent via email on the same day was read by them only on November 4, due to the declared legal holiday.
The OVP officials, however, maintained that the ongoing proceedings must have a “clear legislative objective or contemplated legislation,” and that a draft bill should be included in the invitation to the resource speakers.
The group said that the proceedings commenced following the privilege speech of Manila 2nd District Representative Rolando Valeriano on September 3, pertaining to the budget utilization of the OVP for 2023 and 2024, and its proposal for 2025.
“There was no announcement or information from the committee on the definite subject matter or law to be crafted, amended or repealed with the commencement of the proceedings. It was not part of the invitations,” the position paper reads.
The OVP executives also claimed that the discussions in the hearings have substantially changed as these “are no longer germane to the original matter,” saying the inquiry violates due process as there was “a lack of proper notice of the definite scope of their appearance.”
“It should be noted that a resource person must possess the proper competence to answer the questions of the committee. Unbridled and publicized discussions on matters that remain to be undefined, like what legislation is intended to be crafted, pose a risk to resource persons,” the group said.
The executives told the committee that it should have “provided a description of the law it intends to draft, amend, or repeal in aid of legislation.”
On the question of jurisdiction, the OVP executives maintained that the Committee on Appropriations has the proper jurisdiction to investigate the issues being taken up before the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability.
“Considering that budget utilization is a matter directly and principally relating to the expenditures of the national government, and that the appropriate committee has already terminated its deliberations, no other committee can take up the same subject matter appropriately belonging to it,” the paper reads.
The OVP executives also stressed that the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability lacks authority to make an inquiry on the issue, as “there has been no determination as to the existence of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office.”
Batangas City 2nd District Rep. Gerville R. Luistro maintained that the invited officials could not validly invoke the “sub judice rule” to justify their non-attendance in the inquiry.
“There is no pending court case or administrative appeal that involves the same subject matter of this hearing. I understand that there are pending petitions before the Supreme Court but let us acknowledge that the subject matter of those petitions is the constitutionality of the grant of confidential fund to executive offices like OVP and DEPED (Department of Education), whereas the subject matter of this investigation … is the utilization of the confidential fund. These are two different matters,” she said.
She added that Section 1 of the Rules on Inquiry in Aid of Legislation states that “the filing or pendency of case before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial, or administrative body shall not stop or abate any inquiry conducted to carry out any legislative process.”
Citing the Supreme Court case of Romero II vs Estrada, Luistro added that “ongoing judicial proceedings cannot preclude or hinder congressional hearings in aid of legislation.”
“In this case, it was held that mere filing of criminal or administrative complaints before a court should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it will be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by congress through a convenient ploy of instituting criminal or administrative complaints.”
She added that the exercise of “sovereign legislative authority of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or administrative investigation.” (Antonio L. Colina IV / MindaNews)
