COMMENTARY : ACCORDING TO CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCES COMING OUT OF THE PHILIPPINE SENATE , SENATOR MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO HAS EXPLICITLY STATED BEFORE TELEVISION NEWS CAMERAS THAT FORMER SENATE-PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE WAS THE ONE WHO FINANCED THE ZAMBOANGA CRISIS TO PUT OFF BALANCE THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND DIVERT THEIR ATTENTION , ESPECIALLY THAT OF THE MEDIA , AWAY FROM THE MORE IMPORTANT PORK BARREL CONTROVERSY INVOLVING THE UNMASKING OF HIGH-RANKING PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS BIG-TIME THIEVES WHO STOLE HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM FILIPINOS IN CONNIVANCE WITH CIVILIAN THIEVERY EXPERT JANET NAPOLES .. IN OTHER WORDS , THESE PHILIPPINE SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT VIPS AND BIG SHOTS HAVE BEEN ROBBING THE FILIPINOS BLIND OVER THE YEARS LIKE IT IS SIMPLY A NORMAL OCCURRENCE , NO BIG DEAL . AND TO MAKE IT WORSE , EVEN THE PROGENITOR OF THE WONDERFUL PHILOSOPHY : "KUNG WALANG KORAP WALANG MAHIRAP" PRESIDENT NOYNOY AND HIS CLOSE GOVERNMENT COLLEAGUES LIKE HIS CABINET OFFICIALS , ARE INVOLVED . Drilon told: Don’t cut power of the Senate By Macon Ramos-Araneta | Posted 4 hours ago | 372 views 1 The chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Thursday urged Senate President Franklin Drilon to reconsider his decision to disallow a subpoena to compel Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged mastermind of the pork barrel scam, to testify before the panel. In a four-page letter, Senator Teofisto Guingona III said caution, timing and prudence should not be used to diminish or destroy the constitutional power of the Senate to conduct investigations in aid of legislation. Since government officials and whistleblowers have been summoned to testify, Guingona said he is baffled by the efforts of Drilon and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to block Napoles from answering questions before the committee. Guingona said that since he sat as Blue Ribbon committee chairman, 22 subpoenas have been signed by the previous and current Senate president. “There is no reason why Napoles subpoena must be treated differently,” Guingona said. He said the Senate’s power has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases such as the Romero v. Chavez, in which it was stated that the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. “Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or administrative investigation,” the Supreme Court said in its ruling in that case. Senator Francis Escudero said there is no need for the Senate to accede to the opinion of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Napoles’ appearance before the committee. Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Peter Cayetano said he agreed with Guingona’s stand on the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to compel any Filipino to take the witness stand. But he said he is also amenable to the point of Drilon that if Napoles were subpoenaed and Morales did not accede, then the clash between the Senate and the Ombudsman would not help in the investigation of the case. “For me, this case will still grow bigger. So Napoles should tell all as soon as possible. If she insists that there is already a case against her and she would not go because there are obstacles, then get all witnesses,” Cayetano said. Cayetano said he believed that the Makati court, which has jurisdiction over the illegal detention case filed against Napoles, would eventually allow her to testify before the Senate. At the resumption of the pork barrel inquiry Thursday, Guingona said Napoles should have been there to answer the allegations hurled against her, but the subpoena was not signed. “I am issuing a letter to the Senate President urging him to reconsider his position not to approve the subpoena for Napoles. We await his response,” Guingona said. Drilon said he would not sign the subpoena in deference to Morales, who said Napoles’ testimony would violate confidentiality rules and hurt the state’s case against her. But retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno took an opposing view over the legal opinion of the Ombudsman, herself a retiree from the Supreme Court. Puno said the power of Congress to investigate in aid of legislation should prevail over any confidentiality rules in a preliminary investigation or even in trial. “The cardinal principle of separation of powers demands from all branches and agencies of government the highest respect for the legislative power of Congress and its right to investigate in aid of legislation. Any undue dilution of the exclusive power of Congress is dangerous for it can destroy the check and balance mechanism of governmental powers so delicately crafted in our Constitution,” Puno said in a statement. Puno said the power of Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to summon anyone to its inquiry is granted by the Constitution while the confidentiality rule, which De Lima had invoked in earlier refusing to bring all whistleblowers to the inquiry, is only provided in administrative rules. “This constitutional right to investigate in aid of legislation cannot be defeated nor diminished by any confidentiality rule, which is only found in the rules of procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. An administrative rule can never negate a constitutional grant of power,” he said. Also on Thursday, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s former chief of staff, Gigi Reyes, should turn state witness and tell all against her former boss. Enrile’s lawyer, Enrique dela Cruz, reportedly said that Enrile did not authorize Reyes to sign papers to authorize the transfer of his pork barrel to non-government organizations set up by Napoles. Santiago said Reyes was an eligible state witness because there was an absolute necessity for her testimony with respect to the senator. Without her testimony, Santiago said, no other direct evidence would be available for the prosecution to prove plunder against Enrile. “Her testimony could be substantially corroborated in its material points,” Santiago said. With Rey E. Requejo 1
Posted on: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:52:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015