|
SENATE
Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. on Thursday
asserted that former socioeconomic planning secretary
Romulo Neri cannot impose any condition on the Senate
for resuming his testimony on the ZTE-national broadband
network (NBN) project.
Pimentel
expressed misgivings over Neri’s proposal, put forward
by his lawyer Antonio Bautista, that Neri is willing to
come back to the Senate to complete his testimony but he
should be allowed to do so in an executive session.
Neri had
declared his willingness to resume his testimony after
President Arroyo’s decision to revoke the Palace gag
order under Executive Order (EO) 464 and despite the
Senate’s rejection of a compromise drawn up by the
Supreme Court (SC) to resolve the issue over his
nonappearance at the hearings on the NBN-ZTE
controversy.
“We
refuse to acknowledge that any person being summoned by
the Senate has any right to put up conditions for his
appearance. We cannot agree to that,” Pimentel told
reporters. “The only conditions that should bind the
Senate are those ordained by the Constitution,” he
added.
Pimentel
pointed out that “an executive session will be a
decision of the Senate, not of the person who is being
called to testify.”
He
explained that if a witness requests for an executive
session with respect to any particular question raised
during the Senate hearing, the senators will have to
evaluate and decide whether the request qualifies for
such privilege.
“Otherwise, it would look like we are giving blanket
authority to anyone being summoned by the Senate to
impose conditions for his testimony. That should not be
the case,” he said.
Pimentel
admitted the Senate cannot enforce its order to arrest
Neri if he continues to ignore its summons because the
temporary restraining order issued by the SC is deemed
to be still in force and effect owing to the Senate’s
rejection of the proposed compromise.
He said
the majority of the senators strongly opposed the
Court-brokered compromise because it would have the
effect of diluting the investigative powers of the
Senate. The senators decided in a caucus Wednesday night
to just wait for the SC’s decision on the issue.
The
proposal of the SC to allow Neri to testify at the
Senate’s inquiry into the canceled NBN-ZTE project, but
with the condition that the senators refrain from asking
him three questions regarding his conversation with
President Arroyo, was a “wise compromise” while awaiting
the final decision of the Court on the matter.
Fr.
Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, dean of the Graduate School
of Law of San Beda College, in an interview on national
television station NBN-4’s Boses Wednesday night,
said the SC’s proposal “would have allowed the hearings
to go on while we await the judgment of the SC on the
three questions.”
However,
the Senate outrightly rejected the proposal, saying this
would diminish the powers of the Senate to call any
witness or resource person to an inquiry, or to ask
certain questions.
Aquino
stressed that the SC decision was “necessary so the
leaps and bounds of the Executive Order 464 will be
defined clearly.”
He said
it is also unfortunate that the lawyers of persons
invited to Senate inquiries could only advise their
clients but “can’t speak” for their clients.
“You are
practically helpless [at the Senate hearings],” he said.
Arroyo
announced the revocation of EO 464 effective Wednesday.
Neri
agreed to resume his testimony before the Senate but
would not answer questions regarding his conversations
with the President after he told her about an alleged
P200-million bribe offer by former elections chairman
Benjamin Abalos Sr. for the approval of the NBN-ZTE
project.
He said
this was “privileged communication” with the President.
Neri
also asked the Court to stop the Senate from arresting
him for refusing earlier to testify again in the Senate.
The SC
would have to decide whether the Senate has the right to
arrest uncooperative witnesses and if the questions that
Neri refused to answer were covered by executive
privilege.
Despite
the Senate’s rejection of the compromise agreement drawn
up by the SC on the appearance by Neri, Sen. Pia
Cayetano is confident that the Court would order Neri to
appear before the committees investigating the anomalies
surrounding the broadband network deal with ZTE Co. of
China.
“I’m
quite confident that the SC will ask Neri to appear
before the Senate because the invocation of the right to
executive privilege does not include the right not to
appear. I’m quite certain Neri will appear,” she told
reporters.
“Maybe
what we can hope from the SC is a declaration of what is
the scope of executive privilege without curtailing the
powers of the Senate, which is guaranteed by the
Constitution. I hope Neri will appear soon because
laging nade-delay ang investigation and
because he has very vital information [on the deal],”
said Cayetano.
At the
same time, the SC said it has no other option but to
resolve the current controversy pertaining to the proper
invocation of executive privilege based on the three
questions that were asked to Neri by senators
investigating the NBN-ZTE deal.
In an
interview, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the
decision of the majority of the senators to reject the
Court’s compromise proposal might further delay the
proceedings before the Senate.
Marquez
said the Court could have come up with a more
comprehensive parameters on invoking executive privilege
if the Senate accepted the compromise proposal.
Under
the compromise proposal, Neri will appear anew before
the Senate investigation and will not be asked anymore
the three questions where he already invoked executive
privilege, but he can be asked by the Senators any other
questions where he can still invoke executive privilege.
The
senators may cite him in contempt for not answering the
questions but cannot detain him as the questions would
have to be elevated to the Court who will, in turn,
decide whether executive privilege was properly invoked
on the said questions.
“The
Court can definitely decide on the issue based on the
three questions, there is no question to that. But, we
already foresee that there will be subsequent inquiries
into disputes on invocation of executive privilege so it
would have been better if the Court was able to come up
with a comprehensive decision based on, let’s say, 50
questions. That would have been enough. That is the
opportunity we are missing,” Marquez said.
Marquez
said the Court might be able to decide on whether Neri
properly invoked executive privilege on the three
questions a month after the parties submitted their
respective memoranda.
But,
Marquez admitted, such decision will not put an end to
the issue on proper invocation of executive privilege as
there is a possibility that Neri will invoke the same
privilege when asked of other questions in future
hearings. (With J. San Juan and I. Abaño) |