Drilon stands pat on decision against Napoles subpoena

Senate President Franklin Drilon: On the side of prudence. PRIB FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Not now.

Senate President Franklin Drilon on Thursday stood pat on his decision not to summon pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles to the Senate blue ribbon investigation until Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales allows it.

“Once I receive the letter from Senator TG Guingona, I will refer that to the Ombudsman,” Drilon told the Inquirer after Guingona, the chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee, announced Thursday that he would ask Drilon to reconsider his decision.

Drilon also clarified that Napoles’ appearance at the Senate was deemed not advisable at this time because the Ombudsman was still conducting a fact-finding evaluation brought before it of the plunder charges in an alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam.

He said there was no need for the committee to rush the appearance of Napoles because she might still be allowed to testify before it by the Ombudsman later.

“Yes, it is still possible,” Drilon said of Napoles testifying later in the Senate.

Right vs self-incrimination

But Inquirer sources said it was not prudent to bring Napoles to the Senate because she could make a “selective invocation of the right against self-incrimination in order to exculpate some of the respondents.”

“Imagine if she starts clearing (those charged), then the credibility of the witnesses and the effectiveness of the prosecution will be put to doubt,” one source said.

Another source said the outcome of the committee hearings would be brought before the Ombudsman anyway.

Drilon earlier did not sign the subpoena issued by Guingona and instead sought Morales’ comment on whether or not Napoles should be summoned to testify in the Senate hearings.

The Ombudsman is evaluating the plunder cases filed by the National Bureau of Investigation against Napoles, three senators and their chiefs of staff as well as malversation cases against other lawmakers and officials in connection with the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

In her letter to Drilon, Morales said that while she recognized the Senate’s power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, “I submit that it would not be advisable, at this time, for Ms. Napoles to testify.”

“The raison d’etre for summoning Ms. Napoles—for her to testify on ‘what (she) knows relative to the alleged…(PDAF) scam’—in aid of legislation would not, I submit, produce at this stage complete, nay reliable information that legislation intends to affect or change,” Morales said.

“Parenthetically, even if Ms. Napoles appears before the Senate to testify on ‘what she knows,’ given that she has publicly, consistently professed that she is not involved in any PDAF-related transaction, the objective of the Senate in summoning her to testify would be an exercise in futility,” Morales said.

On the side of caution

Drilon said he deferred to Morales’ opinion out of prudence and caution.

“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.

“What is at stake here is the ability of the Office of the Ombudsman to prosecute the PDAF misuse cases against Napoles with dispatch and without delay. This is the principal goal of our justice system,” Drilon said. “This is not a question of which institution is supreme: the Senate or the Ombudsman. What we must uphold is the supremacy of the rule of law,” Drilon said.