Pending resolution by the Supreme Court (SC) of his petition challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention, Pharmally Pharmaceuticals Corp. executive Linconn Uy Ong pleaded the Senate to order his release from the Pasay City jail.
In a letter sent to the Senate, Ong’s wife Summer pleaded the release of her husband for humanitarian reasons because their son is currently confined in a hospital “for dengue and the child’s condition is critical.”
Ong was cited in contempt by the Senate’s Blue Ribbon Committee chaired by Sen. Richard J. Gordon. The committee investigated the alleged anomalous multi-billion peso contracts of Pharmally with the government for the purchases of COVID-19 medical supplies.
Last October, Ong filed a petition with the SC challenging his arrest and detention. The SC directed the Senate to comment on Ong’s petition. Since then, Ong’s petition has been pending resolution.
In her letter, a copy of which was given to the Manila Bulletin by lawyer Rita Linda V. Jimeno, Ong’s wife told Senator Gordon:
“I fervently appeal to you to please let my husband go. It is not only I who need him most now, but also our son who is suffering from dengue, who may I just mention is not doing too well and constantly looks for his father.
“You have forcibly taken my husband from me and our two-year old child especially in these times of uncertainty. I have tried these past many months to remain strong, to trust in the justice system of our country, in the hopes that my husband will be freed soonest. Linc (Linconn) has been imprisoned since September of 2021, and it has been more than five months, and every day I fear for his life and of course our future as a family.”
On Feb. 2, 2022, a report was released by the Senate’s Blue Ribbon Committee on its probe on Pharmally’s government deals.
“Senator Gordon, as my lawyers have told me, upon the release of the full report of the Senate, my husband should have been released from his incarceration. However, you have deemed it necessary to keep him imprisoned even without a crime proven or a case filed by issuing a partial Senate report,” Ong’s wife said in her letter.
She also appealed to Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III. She said:
“I seek for your and the other Senators’ understanding and compassion to please consider setting my husband free. He is a father like yourself. He too is a husband like yourself. What Linc is experiencing now, the anguish of not being there for his family, the difficult situation in a City Jail, which incidentally has no jurisdiction over him, and the constant fear for the future, with no clear indication as to when this will all end, please pardon my words, is torture brought upon him and to his family by you and the Senate.”
In his SC petition, Ong said the punishment imposed on him is considered an encroachment on the power of the judiciary.
Through his lawyers led by Ferdinand S. Topacio, Ong asked the SC to declare null and void for being unconstitutional the implementation of Section 18 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation under Senate Resolution No. 5 as amended by Senate Resolution No. 145 that punishes for contempt the act of testifying “falsely or evasively.”
He also pleaded the SC to declare unconstitutional Section 6, Article 6 of the Rules of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation, also known as the Blue Ribbon Committee, insofar as it punishes as contempt the act of testifying “falsely or evasively.”
He said: “For a finding of guilt and the consequent imposition of a punishment for false testimony, the same being a crime defined by law, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The person charged thereof is entitled to all the rights of the accused in a criminal prosecution as provided by the Constitution, including the presumption of innocence and the right to notice and hearing, among others.”
“No tribunal except the proper courts may exercise jurisdiction, hence, try and decide the guilt or innocence of the accused under strict compliance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence. Congress absolutely has no business in the determination of such guilt or innocence much less in the imposition of punishment,” he added.
He pointed out that under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, where the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation emanates, mandates “the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”
“Thus, as provided therein, the investigation must be ‘in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure’ and that ‘the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one’s self’,” he said in his petition.
At the same time, Ong said the rules of the Blue Ribbon Committee which became the basis for contempt citation against him and his subsequent arrest and detention should be struck down for being vague.
He stressed that the rules failed to specify the standards as to what constitutes “testifying falsely or evasively.”
“Here, ‘testifies falsely or evasively,’ the phrase that purports to describe a punishable act, is utterly vague as it does not fairly notify the witness of how it can be committed nor does it restrict in any manner the discretion of the Senate Committee to adjudge an act as falling within its ambit. This should not pass the constitutional muster,” he said.
On the encroachment on the power of the judiciary when he was punished with detention, Ong said: “To allow Congress to punish persons for such crime is to allow not only a grave violation of the right to due process, but at the same time, an encroachment of the power and jurisdiction of the courts to hear, decide and punish criminal actions.”