It was “unusual” that Senate President Franklin Drilon sought the opinion of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on whether to subpoena alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles, according to Sen. Francis Escudero.
Escudero, who filed the resolution for the Senate blue ribbon inquiry into the P10-billion pork scam, said the Senate President found himself in an awkward situation where he couldn’t have gone against the opinion rendered by the Ombudsman.
The former chair of the Senate committee on justice also disagreed with Morales’ opinion that it wasn’t a good idea for Napoles to appear in the Senate at this time, saying that the alleged mastermind behind the pork scam wasn’t even under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
“Well, that was unusual. We should have also asked for the opinion of the Ombudsman as regards the whistle-blowers who already appeared before the Ombudsman,” Escudero said on Drilon’s seeking Morales’ view on Napoles’ testifying in the blue ribbon committee.
“Second, it would have been awkward for Senate President Drilon to seek an opinion and then don’t act according to that opinion. It wouldn’t have been good if the noncompliance would have come from him,” Escudero said.
He made the remarks on the heels of Drilon’s continued refusal to sign the subpoena that the blue ribbon committee chair, Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, had issued for Napoles to appear at the pork barrel scam inquiry.
Drilon sought and received on Tuesday Morales’ opinion on whether Napoles could appear at the panel inquiry on Thursday. Morales said Napoles’ appearance was “not advisable,” citing the Ombudsman law and its rules and regulations.
Drilon said he was deferring to the Ombudsman’s opinion and didn’t sign Guingona’s subpoena.
But the Senate President signed a subpoena requiring Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and a few whistle-blowers to attend the blue ribbon inquiry today.
“In the history of the Senate, a pending case in the Sandiganbayan or more especially before the Ombudsman has never been an obstacle for a witness to be invited,” Escudero said.
“Also, the law being cited by Ombudsman Morales is only applicable to the Office of the Ombudsman, where they are not allowed to disclose [details of a case]. But we’re not sending a subpoena to the Ombudsman,” he added.
In her letter to Drilon, Morales said: It cannot be gainsaid that the publicity that may be spawned by the testimony of Msm Napoles would, among other things, adversely affect public interest, prejudice the safety of witnesses or the disposition of cases against her and/or her correspondents pending before the Office or unduly expose them to ridicule or public censure.”
Morales cited the Ombudsman Law of 1989 and the Rules of the Ombudsman.
She also cited the filing in her office on Sept. 16 of the first Priority Development Assistance Fund complaints against 38 people, including three senators and Napoles, by the National Bureau of Investigation and a private lawyer.
But Escudero said the prohibition on disclosure applied only when the Ombudsman was already in the preliminary investigation stage. The Ombudsman, he said, was still in the fact-finding stage in its handling of the pork barrel scam.
“Third, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Napoles at this time. The one that has jurisdiction over her is the court because she is being detained for another crime,” Escudero said.
Opposition Sen, JV Ejercito said the testimony of Napoles if summoned to the Senate inquiry could incriminate people and officials associated with the Aquino administration.
“Most likely there will be those from the administration who could be implicated,” he told the Inquirer.
Ejercito, chair of the Senate committee on economic affairs, indicated his disagreement with Drilon’s move to ask Morales for her opinion on whether Napoles’ testimony in the Senate inquiry would affect the plunder charges filed in her office.
“The Ombudsman’s opinion is irrelevant,” Ejercito said in a text message.
Ejercito, a former congressman representing San Juan, said, “it is clear from a long line of cases that 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.”
“I am for getting the whole truth about the scam. It should not be limited to the three senators who were accused. Limiting the probe on them will have a semblance of being selective,” he said.
“Let no stone be left unturned even if those who might be implicated are close to the present administration,” Ejercito added.