By: ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
September 25, 2013 12:32 AM
The online news portal of TV5
There are only three great branches of government in our system: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. They are “great” because, unlike all other constitutionally mandated entities such as the constitutional commissions (audit, civil service and elections), the Central Bank, the Monetary Board and the Office of the Ombudsman, they perform vital sovereign functions of government.
Laws are legislated by Congress, implemented by the Executive department and interpreted by the Judiciary. Each one is independent and supreme in its own sphere and cannot be dictated upon by the other. In the hierarchy of governmental departments, these three are the highest. All other agencies are not their equal.
During the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on September 24, 2013, the whole nation was witness to how a mere department secretary informed the Senate of the Philippines in its Blue Ribbon Committee hearing that, despite previous promises to bring in witnesses relative to the PDAF corruption scandal involving billions of pesos, she did not do so because, according to her, the prerogative to bring witnesses now belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman where the pertinent cases have been filed. She even alluded to the “confidentiality” rules of this other agency – inferior to the Senate – as one of her main reasons.
One cannot blame Senator TG Guingona for his “disappointment”. He was correct in saying that such non-compliance “undermined” the sovereign prerogatives of the Senate in aid of legislation. For how could a department secretary, as an excuse for not fulfilling her commitment, invoke the powers belonging to another agency of which she was not even connected, and, worse, an agency, clearly inferior constitutionally to the Senate. Invoking the confidentiality rules of another agency without any findings that the presentation of the witnesses will endanger “national security” or “public interest”, or “will prejudice the safety of the witnesses, or the disposition of the case or unduly expose persons complained against to ridicule or pubic censure,” was just too speculative and downright baseless at that point. The incredibility of the Secretary of Justice’s reasoning just begs its outright rejection. Nothing could be more insulting.
What is more perplexing is the move of Senate President Franklin Drilon to get an advisory opinion from the Office of the Ombudsman even before the September 24 hearing. Why did he even do this? He is supposed to be the leader of one of the three great branches of our government. If anyone must assert the Senate’s high authority, that person should be the Senate President. And that great authority emanates from no less than the highest law of the land, the Constitution. Significantly, Section 21 Article 6 thereof pertinently provides that “the Senate or … any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.”
The Senate’s duties and prerogatives created and delegated by the Constitution are far more fundamentally superior than the Office of the Ombudsman’s prerogatives in relation to the determination of which specific cases should not be made public based on ordinary legislation, Republic Act No. 6770, passed by Congress. Basic is the rule that statutes cannot surpass, equal, create limitations or impose conditions on constitutional provisions. This is so because, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408),
“A Constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute, and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation … The fundamental conception is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.”
There was no need to seek an opinion from an inferior albeit constitutional body like the Office of the Ombudsman. It was uncalled for given the highly significant issue involving the huge amount of public money malversed allegedly by elected high government officials. The Senate President must be confident of the Senate’s own powers and abilities to handle investigations as well as the protection of witnesses. Given the craving of the people to know the truth, the most logical, reasonable and proper thing to do was to support Senator TG Guingona, chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, and assert the Senate’s constitutional powers which include the summoning of the witnesses in aid of legislation.
After the hearing was adjourned, Senate President Drilon had a press briefing in the afternoon where he signed the subpoena addressed to the Secretary of Justice De Lima as requested by Senator Guingona. At the same time however, he informed the press that he already had the opinion of the Office of Ombudsman contained in a letter “where the Ombudsman ruled that it is not advisable, at this time, for Ms. Napoles to testify before the Blue Ribbon Committee on what she knows about the alleged scam for the reasons stated in said letter.” The Senate President was then reported as concluding that:
“The Ombudsman is in the best position to determine whether or not the prosecution of this case will be prejudiced by the appearance of Ms. Napoles in the Senate. That is a power and a function that is in her office recognized by law. So it is on that basis that we are deferring to the judgment and the ruling of the Ombudsman that we defer at this stage the appearance of Ms. Napoles before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee as, in her judgment, it could prejudice the prosecution of this case.”
To say the least, such conclusion not to summon Ms. Napoles is again perplexing. To even anchor it on the constitutional prerogatives of the Ombudsman giving it exclusive jurisdiction over the PDAF cases is just fundamentally flawed. What about the Constitutional prerogatives of the Senate , which is a one of the great branches of government, to fulfill its investigative mandate in aid of legislation? Surely, the power of the Ombudsman to determine the conditions, as laid down by statute, when graft cases will or will not be publicized is outweighed by the constitutional exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate to investigate in aid of legislation. The latter is fore fundamental and sovereign. The tilting of the balance in favor of a constitutional duty as against a statutory privilege or right is a no-brainer.
Indeed, the acts of the Senate President generate more questions than answers. What is more fundamental, the Constitutional provisions in aid of legislation or statutory conditions in the determination of grounds relating to publicity? The prerogatives of the Senate or those of the Office of the Ombudsman? Why does the Senate give so much deference to the Ombudsman’s investigative powers and not to its very own constitutional investigative powers in aid of legislation? The Senate deferment of the calling of a witness in deference to the say-so of the Office of the Ombudsman cannot but sire speculative thoughts on the part of the public that there is something or someone being protected by not allowing statements of witnesses to be made in the halls of the Senate in full view of the public. As the adage says, if there is nothing to hide, why prevent the revelation?
One cannot but sympathize with Senator TG Guingona. I hope the Senate leadership does not totally abandon him. The people at this point must support Senator Guingona, who, one hopes, also does not cave in. If Senator Guingona becomes successful in haling these witnesses to the Senate, one again hopes that he will not be selective. Let the ax fall where it should fall regardless of each senator’s affiliation. If there is no one to protect, the Senate investigation must go on full blast despite the investigation of the Office of the Ombudsman.
This Senate investigation can be a turning point in our history in curbing dishonesty and corruption in government. One hopes the Senate as a body will not self-destruct in this investigation and produce nothing in the end. After this investigation, it should not be “business as usual” for the corrupt. There’s just too much at stake in not finding out the whole truth and pursuing genuine, complete reform.
More Stories
Trump Presidency Boon To Philippine Agriculture
Mindanao Fruit Fest Scheduled Sept. 2025
DA, MinDA, LGU! MinDA Targets Tribal Areas For Highland Rice Farming