|
SENATORS
on Monday slammed Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita’s
“erroneous” interpretation that a recent Supreme Court
(SC) ruling effectively allowed Cabinet officials to
evade Senate summons to testify in inquiries into
alleged anomalies in the Arroyo administration until the
publication of Senate rules covering investigations in
aid of legislation.
Senate
President Manuel Villar Jr. maintained the position of
the majority of the senators on the issue is clear: that
the Senate had already published its rules on inquiries
and, being a continuing body where at least 12 of its 24
members always remain in office even as 12 new senators
are elected every three years, is not required to
publish it again.
“Why
needlessly declare war on the Senate, why oh why?” a
dismayed Sen. Joker Arroyo asked. Instead of Ermita
gloating over the SC ruling that tended to favor the
Palace, Arroyo advised the Malacañang official to “be
thankful and magnanimous by simply being quiet and
prudent and not unnecessarily taunt the Senate… a
weakness of small minds.”
Sen.
Francis Escudero complained that Ermita was “stretching
too far their interpretation of the court ruling on
publication of rules. He cannot generalize his
interpretation of the court ruling and deem Cabinet men
immune from inquiries.”
Sen.
Loren Legarda, in a separate statement, insisted that
Malacañang cannot claim that the rules used by the
Senate to investigate government scandals are “infirm,”
noting that President Arroyo herself has been signing
into law pieces of proposed legislation that were the
fruits of what the Palace alleged to be infirm Senate
rules.
Legarda
argued that since the Senate is a continuing body and
its Rules of Procedure has not been amended since its
publication on December 1, 2006, there is no need for
the Senate to republish its rules.
“For
Malacañang to say that the Senate rules are infirm would
mean all laws passed by Congress are constitutionally
infirm.”
Legarda
added, “It does not look good for Malacañang to seek
succor from legal technicalities so its officials may
evade summons by the Senate to attend its public
hearings and investigations conducted in aid of
legislation.”
At the
same time, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr.
pointed out that Ermita apparently “does not know what
he is talking about.”
“It [Ermita’s
statement] does not carry much weight, that is why I am
proposing that he [Ermita] should be replaced by
Mercedita Ona, this young girl who topped the recent bar
exam, because she would know the law better than Ermita,”
Pimentel added.
This
developed as Sen. Mar Roxas warned against Malacañang’s
penchant for “excessive secrecy” in the treatment of
routine information with no bearing upon national or
diplomatic security.
“Placing
capricious limits to the people’s access to public
information violates the Constitution and weakens the
principle of democratic checks and balances,” he said.
Speaker
Prospero Nograles, at the same time, advised legislators
questioning the Court’s decision upholding the petition
of former socioeconomic planning secretary and now
Commission on Higher Education Chairman Romulo Neri, who
invoked executive privilege in refusing to answer
certain questions raised by senators relative to the
controversial $329-million national broadband network (NBN)
deal with
China’s
ZTE Co.
“That’s
why we have judges and referees to settle conflicts.
That is why we have the SC that should interpret the law
once a conflict in interpretation arises,” Nograles
said, noting that, in countless instances, senators have
won cases in the highest court.
“After
each win, they heaped praises on the justices. In a
democracy, you cannot win them all [cases],” Nograles
said.
He said
the Court’s decision only affirmed the constitutional
mandate for the Senate and the House of Representatives
to publish in newspapers of general circulation their
respective rules of procedures governing inquiries in
aid of legislation.
“Yes,
this is provided in our rules in consonance with the
Constitution,” Nograles said.
Relatedly, House Majority Leader Arthur Defensor said
Monday that the House is unlikely to experience the same
scenario as the Senate relative to the conduct of
inquiries in aid of legislation.
“We have
no problem with that in the House,” Defensor said.
He said
House Secretary-General Marilyn Yap has confirmed the
House Rules of Procedures Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation was approved and adopted in plenary on
November 20, 2007, and was published in leading
newspapers on December 28, 2007.
Nograles
and Defensor noted the power to conduct congressional
inquiries in aid of legislation is provided for under
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution.
The
House Rules of Procedures provides that at least
one-fifth of all the members of a committee or a
majority of all the members of a subcommittee shall
constitute a quorum.
Under
Section 9 of the rules provides, “the rights of
witnesses including their right against
self-incrimination shall be respected” and further says
that “privileged communication shall be respected.”
In
addition, Section 15, which relates to termination of
inquiries, states, “the committee shall terminate an
inquiry and submit a report within sixty [60] calendar
days from date of commencement.”
The
inquiry commences on the date of referral of the
privileged speech, petition or information to the
pertinent committee or adoption of resolution directing
or authorizing the conduct of an inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (PCCI), the country’s largest business
organization, backed calls to respect the decision of
the Court on executive privilege in order to strengthen
the “rule of law.”
In a
statement, PCCI underscored the importance of the “rule
of law” and “faith in institutional process” in
maintaining the democratic ideals of the country and its
institutions.
The
group declared:
“We have
to abide with the processes that guide our Constitution
and the institutions that operate within that framework.
The SC’s role as the sole interpreter of our
Constitution and government policies should not be
undermined; more so, its credibility and integrity
should never be questioned.
“PCCI
maintains that the preeminent role of the SC as a
constitutional body providing check and balance in
government affairs must be upheld. It strengthens the
rule of law and provides stability, peace and progress
for our entire society.
“PCCI as
the voice of business supports all means of processes
and procedures that are found within the ideals of the
Constitution. PCCI’s existence and advocacy thrives in
the upholding of government institutions and respect for
their functions, operations, procedures and decisions.” |
