Senate divided over Napoles’ presence in ‘pork’ probe

Janet Lim-Napoles INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Senators   were divided  over Senate  President Franklin Drilon’s  decision not to summon Janet  Lim-Napoles for the chamber’s inquiry into the  alleged P10- billion pork barrel scam.

At least three senators—Grace  Poe, Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito and  Francis  “Chiz” Escudero—asserted the independence and power of Congress to investigate in aid  of legislation.

Senator Teofisto Guingona III, chairman of the Senate blue ribbon committee,  was the first to raise his disappointment when  Drilon decided to defer  to the opinion of the Ombudsman that  it “would not be advisable” to call  Napoles in the  Senate probe.

“The  power of Congress to legislate is plenary. No  other institution can substitute for the Senate to determine what to legislate on and when,”  Poe said in a text message on Wednesday.

“The determination of what  information is reliable from resource speakers  invited is for the senators to determine by themselves,” she said.

Besides, Poe said,  the purpose of the Senate probe was to come up with a remedial measure on legislators’ priority development assistance fund (PDAF), known as “pork barrel” funds, and not to determine the   probable cause of  a criminal case that  has been filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

“Anyway, whoever is invited could always invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination which the Senate ought to respect,” she added.

Ejercito said the Ombudsman’s opinion was “irrelevant,” pointing out a line of cases where the Supreme Court has upheld the independence of the blue ribbon committee “not only to conduct inquiries  in aid of legislation but to investigate other wrongdoings and recommend the prosecution of erring parties.”

“Senate as an institution should not allow itself to be emasculated,” he said in a separate text message.

Escudero, in an interview Tuesday, said he was against Drilon’s  decision not to subpoena Napoes, saying that the pendency  of a case in court has not prevented the Senate before to call  a witness  in its own  hearing.

But  he recognized  that only the Senate President has  the power to  issue a subpoena and that the  blue ribbon committee, which made a request to summon Napoles, could not reverse  Drilon’s  decision.

“Kung mayroon mang pwedeng mag-overwrite don, plenary lamang at hindi iyong komite (If there’s anyone who could overwrite that, that would be the plenary and not the committee),” Escudero said in an interview Tuesday.

While he would also want Napoles to testify  in  the Senate,  Senate  Pro Tempore  Ralph Recto said “timing” was also “very important.”

“Just like many others, I would like to hear Napoles testify at the Senate. I do have questions I want to ask her,” Recto said.

“However, timing is very important. The Ombudsman recommends we do not invite her now. The Senate President agrees with the Ombudsman. I agree with the Ombudsman. Let’s wait for the peoper time,”  he added.

Recto said he expects  a discussion on the issue  in a caucus of senators.

Neophyte   Senator Juan Edgardo Angara agreed that summoning Napoles was just a question of timing.

“I suppose the Senate President was just being cautious when he deferred to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under RA 6770,” he said.

“It may just be a question  of timing but I have no doubt that the people’s desire for justice will be served, whether it’s trough exacting accountability and punishing corruption by the filing of cases or through having better institutional safeguards over public funds,” Angara said.

Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said he was  “neutral”  on the issue while Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan said he would just leave  the matter to the decision of the Senate leader.

Sotto said, “If it’s in aid of legislation, then we should invite whoever is necessary. If it’s not, then the Ombudsman is right.”

“It’s the Senate President’s call and he represents the majority in the Senate as a collegial and consensual body,”  Honasan said.

While it was only “appropriate”  for Drilon to seek the opinion of the Ombudsman, Senator Nancy Binay said it was not  for the  Ombudsman to tell the Senate what is in air of legislation or not.

“If we want reforms in handling people’s money, we also need to see the lapses in the system,” Binay said.

Sotto, Honasan and Binay belong to the minority bloc in the Senate in which at least  two of their colleagues— Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce-Enrile and Senator Jose “Jingoy” Estrada were charged with plunder for alleged misuse of their PDAF.

Related Story:

Janet Napoles and the pork barrel scam