Aguirre’s testimony full of holes, says Trillanes
Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II testifying at the Senate on Monday. —EDWIN BACASMAS
Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on Tuesday urged Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II whom he called “paranoid” to stick to the issue as the latter’s testimony at the Senate inquiry into the alleged P50-million bribery/extortion scandal at the Bureau of Immigration (BI) had many holes.
Trillanes was reacting to Aguirre’s accusation that he and Sen. Francis Pangilinan wanted to offer legislative immunity to former BI Deputy Commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles who allegedly extorted money from casino tycoon Jack Lam in exchange for testifying against the justice secretary.
A day after Trillanes accused Aguirre of being part of a shakedown of Lam following a Senate blue ribbon committee hearing on the BI controversy, the senator said the justice secretary “is being haunted by the truth that’s why he is getting paranoid.”
“Aguirre should stick to the issue. There are so many holes in his testimony,” Trillanes said.
Aguirre left the Senate hearing on Monday when Trillanes raised the possible involvement of the justice secretary in the BI controversy.
9 questions
The senator raised nine questions that Aguirre had to answer.
Why did the justice secretary meet with “suspects” in a case in a hotel? Aguirre met on Nov. 27, 2016, with Lam and Wally Sombero on the BI arrest of 1,316 Chinese nationals illegally working for Lam in Clark Freeport in Pampanga. Sombero, a Lam representative, is the person that Argosino and Robles claimed to have given them a P50-million bribe for them to help in the release of the Chinese workers.
Why did Aguirre invite Argosino, “his fraternity brother (both came from San Beda College of Law), to the meeting with Lam instead of the BI chief, Jaime Morente?
Why did Aguirre tell Argosino “ikaw na bahala” after he left the meeting with Lam.
Why did he tell Argosino not to cooperate with then BI Executive Assistant Charles Calima Jr., who turned out to be investigating the two BI officials for allegedly extorting money from Lam through Sombero?
How did Aguirre know the amount of the supposed bribe of P50 million to P100 million as early as Dec. 1 when nobody supposedly told him about it?
Why did Argosino ask for P100 million from Sombero if his frat brother and boss Aguirre did not approve of it? (Sombero could simply validate this directly with Aguirre).
If Aguirre wasn’t part of the extortion/bribery, why would Sombero give P50 million to Argosino when he knew that Argosino didn’t have the authority or power to release the Chinese workers?
No legislative immunity
Pangilinan denied as “baseless and unfounded” Aguirre’s accusation against him.
“The Senate does not have the power nor the authority to grant legislative immunity. In fact, legislative immunity doesn’t exist in the Senate rule book so the accusation is baseless,” Pangilinan said.
The senator also said he did not want immunity to be granted to Argosino and Robles who were fired as BI deputy commissioners by Aguirre for receiving the P50 million.
“On the contrary, I want them both charged criminally and thrown behind bars,” Pangilinan said, adding that Aguirre was “being fed with wrong information.”
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III said there was “no express mention of legislative immunity” in the Senate rules, “only immunity for witnesses in legislative proceedings.”
Aguirre denied the claim of Trillanes that he was involved in the alleged extortion try on Lam.
But after the hearing on Monday, Senators Richard Gordon and Leila de Lima agreed that Aguirre had to explain some things following testimonies made at the hearing.
“The jury is not out yet. But there are some questions (Aguirre) has to explain,” he said, adding that he had many questions to ask the justice secretary.
Asked to comment on Aguirre’s possible accountability, Gordon said Argosino’s statement that Aguirre had told him to be on top of the meeting with Lam was “conflicting.”
Gordon said, however, that he did not hear Aguirre had made this statement to Argosino.
But Gordon, chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee, said that what Aguirre said was for Sombero not to listen to Calima and that Sombero could make everything clear.
Asked whether he was convinced that Aguirre had no involvement in the controversy, Gordon said: “I did not say that. I am not yet done. We are still not done (with the inquiry).”
De Lima, for her part, could not understand why Aguirre had to meet with Lam when there was already a case against his workers.
“That meeting should have taken place at the BI,” said De Lima, who served as justice secretary during President Benigno Aquino III’s administration.
