Aquino allies bicker on pork probe
To be or not to be at the Senate inquiry into the pork barrel scandal. That is the question.
President Aquino’s allies appear to be on a collision course over whether to respect the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman not to allow alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles and whistle-blowers to appear in the Senate inquiry.
Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, chair of the blue ribbon committee, wants Napoles, Benhur Luy and the other whistle-blowers to attend the hearing that the panel was conducting on the scam.
But Senate President Franklin Drilon and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima wanted to get the opinion of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on compelling Napoles and the whistle-blowers to appear before the blue ribbon committee.
Guingona, a party mate of Aquino and Drilon, vice chair of the ruling Liberal Party, has issued subpoenas to Napoles and the whistle-blowers for their appearance at the hearing. The subpoena, however, needed the Senate President’s signature to take effect.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Guingona scolded De Lima after she appeared at the hearing without the whistle-blowers, who, he said, the justice secretary had promised to bring with her.
Article continues after this advertisementPrimary jurisprudence
Article continues after this advertisementNapoles is not expected to appear before the committee on Thursday after Drilon on Tuesday announced that he was deferring to the Ombudsman’s opinion that it was “not advisable at this time for Ms. Napoles to testify before the blue ribbon committee on what she knows about the alleged scam.”
“Let us not forget that the Ombudsman is not an ordinary government functionary. She is an independent constitutional official, and the Office of the Ombudsman is a constitutional office,” Drilon said in an early-afternoon news conference on Tuesday.
“Out of prudence and out of respect for her office, we must defer to the judgment of the Ombudsman as she has acquired primary jurisdiction over the case,” Drilon added.
Drilon, on Monday, sought the Ombudsman’s comment as regards the subpoena for Napoles. He got his answer Tuesday.
Ombudsman’s position
“It cannot be gainsaid that the publicity that may be spawned by the testimony of Ms. Napoles would, among other things, adversely affect public interest, prejudice the safety of witnesses or the disposition of cases against her and/or her corespondents pending before this Office or unduly expose them to ridicule or public censure,” Morales said in her letter to Drilon.
The Ombudsman based her decision on Section 15[1] of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 2,[2] Rule V of Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman).
Morales also cited the filing in the Office of the Ombudsman on Sept. 16 of the first set of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) complaints against 38 people, including three senators and Napoles, by the National Bureau of Investigation and lawyer Levito Baligod.
She further said that “[t]here are also other PDAF-related cases involving other government officials in conspiracy with other private persons which are pending investigation” by the Office of the Ombudsman.
‘Senate power is supreme’
Morales said summoning Napoles would not produce reliable information at this stage, considering that she has publicly and consistently professed that she was not involved in any PDAF-related transaction.
Guingona said Drilon was wrong when the Senate President decided to first get Morales’ view before acting on the subpoena for Napoles’ appearance on Thursday.
“I’m not in favor of getting the comment of the Ombudsman. The power of the Senate is supreme. We can’t allow the opinion of another branch of government to hold sway here,” Guingona said after Tuesday morning’s abbreviated inquiry into the pork barrel scam.
Like Drilon, De Lima cited provisions of the Ombudsman Law and the Ombudsman’s rules in her decision to forego the appearance of any of the witnesses in the scam.
De Lima said she didn’t mean to undermine the authority of the Senate but only wanted to have the Ombudsman’s guidance before allowing the witnesses to testify in the Senate inquiry.
Unimpressed
Apparently unimpressed with De Lima’s explanation, Guingona issued a subpoena for De Lima and the witnesses to appear at the hearing on Thursday.
Guingona indicated that if the Senate blue ribbon committee did not assert its authority, wrongdoers who don’t want to appear at its hearings could have other people file flimsy cases in the Office of the Ombudsman.
“Once you have a case, you can no longer be touched by the Senate blue ribbon committee. I will not let that happen. That’s wrong and I won’t let that happen on my watch. That will never happen,” he said.
In his news conference, Drilon signed Guingona’s subpoena for De Lima and whistle-blowers Benhur Luy, Gertrudes Luy, Marina Sula and Merlina Suñas.
Drilon said it was now up to De Lima, the subject of the subpoena, to seek the Ombudsman’s guidance if she wanted to.
“The Office of the Ombudsman has already issued a ruling in the case of Napoles, so we will follow that,” he said.
“There is no such request for the whistle-blowers and the subpoena is addressed to Secretary De Lima. If Secretary De Lima thinks that she should request the opinion of the Ombudsman, that is the matter that Secretary De Lima should handle,” Drilon added.
In his own news conference earlier Tuesday, Guingona said there was no need to talk with Drilon on the subpoena he would issue to De Lima and the witnesses.
‘I have my duty’
“I totally disagree with the action of the Senate President on that matter,” Guingona said, referring to Drilon’s move to get Morales’ consent before signing the subpoena Guingona had sought for Napoles.
“No more. I have already stated in public that I am issuing it. I will issue it…. He has his prerogatives, I have my duty,” Guingona added.
Malacañang found Guingona’s outburst at the blue ribbon committee hearing “surprising.”
At a news briefing, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte sided with De Lima, explaining that Guingona’s move to compel whistle-blowers to face the committee had to be cleared first with the Office of the Ombudsman, which had acquired jurisdiction over the plunder and other charges lodged in connection with the P10-billion pork barrel scam.—With a report from Michael Lim Ubac
RELATED STORIES:
Ombudsman: Inviting Napoles to Senate ‘not advisable’
