Lawmakers Espino, Villafuerte dispute suspension orders
Camarines Sur Rep. Luis “LRay” Villafuerte Jr.: Puzzled. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Two lawmakers on trial for graft are contesting the preventive suspension orders imposed upon them by the Sandiganbayan, as the House of Representatives bides its time on their status.
In separate motions for reconsideration, Representatives Amado Espino Jr. of Pangasinan and Luis Raymund “LRay” Villafuerte Jr. of Camarines Sur sought a reversal of the anti-graft court’s resolutions, both dated Sept. 7, which ordered them to desist from performing their duties pending litigation of their respective cases.
In Espino’s Sept. 14 motion, he argued that his 90-day suspension was being used by his political rivals as “an instrument for politically motivated harassment and persecution.”
READ: Espino ordered suspended for 90 days
“The suspension is being used as a mere weapon to unseat the lawful representative of the people and to damage his reputation,” his pleading read. Espino was formerly with the Nationalist People’s Coalition and supported the erstwhile ruling Liberal Party in the May elections.
“Consequently, political rivals, such as in this case, aim to have at least a preventive suspension executed, particularly because it is a convenient way to ensure a disgraceful interruption of the official’s term with no actual hearing has yet to be done and no unlawful act yet to be proven with finality,” he said.
Espino, a former governor of Pangasinan, was suspended by the Sandiganbayan on a graft charge for authorizing the illegal extraction of magnetite or black sand along the coast of the Lingayen Gulf for the development of a golf course.
He argued that the Sandiganbayan’s basis for suspending him, Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was no longer applicable in modern times, “unconstitutional and archaic.”
“Not only does this act of suspension deprive the accused his inherent right to attend sessions or meetings, but it also leaves his constituents with no representation in Congress, especially considering that these alleged charges are in connection with the accused’s pervious position,” Espino said.
He further argued he posed no risk of destroying evidence or influencing witnesses.
“Accused is not acquainted with any of the witnesses. Neither is he in a position or in power to even converse with, much less influence, any of the prosecution’s witnesses. To be candid, accused has no idea who these witnesses will be,” Espino said.
On the other hand, Villafuerte of the Nacionalista Party did not make any claims that politics could be behind the case against him, though he shared Espino’s argument that his suspension would deny his constituents representation in Congress.
READ: CamSur Rep. Villafuerte suspended for 90 days over graft case
He cited the circumstances that he said showed why his suspension would not affect the resolution of his case. Villafuerte, also a former governor of Camarines Sur, is facing a graft charge for the allegedly anomalous procurement of P20 million worth of petroleum products for the provincial government in 2010.
Villafuerte noted that he had been arraigned more than two years ago, “at which time he was no longer holding any public office.”
“The pretrial proceedings of the instant case have already been completed more than two years ago, and the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution is almost complete,” he said.
He added that he was no longer based and no longer held office in Camarines Sur, as he now reported for work at the Batasang Pambansa in Quezon City.
“And it is a matter of record that at no point has accused Villafuerte ever interfered with or impeded the proceedings of the instant case,” he said.
Under orders of the Sandiganbayan to suspend the two lawmakers, the House has referred the matter to the rules committee and has made no decision as to whether to obey.
Under the graft law, public officials facing a graft case may be suspended “pendente lite” or pending litigation for 90 days and stand to lose their benefits.
But the 1987 Constitution states that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty for suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.”
“In view of aforementioned constitutional provision, it is clear that a member of Congress may only be suspended by the House of which he is a member,” Espino said./rga
