The Supreme Court’s decision to nullify the arrest and contempt orders that the Senate issued against Pharmally executive Linconn Ong and former presidential adviser Michael Yang does not mean they are already off the hook.
Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros pointed this out as she believes the two personalities and other masterminds linked in the alleged anomalous procurement of Covid-19 supplies are still not absolved from the serious accusations hurled against them.
“Michael Yang, Linconn Ong and the other masterminds of the Pharmally scandal are not off the hook just yet,” Hontiveros said.
“As one of the senators who took part in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee’s pursuit of accountability in the Pharmally scandal, I am glad that the SC upheld the Senate’s power to hold persons in contempt and compel the cooperation of witnesses, in relation to its power to hold hearings in aid of legislation,” Hontiveros said.
As far as she is concerned, the senator said the SC ruling did not absolve Yang and Ong of the serious accusations against them that were extensively discussed during the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings.
“In fact, the Office of the Ombudsman has already recommended the filing of criminal complaints against Ong, former PS-DBM head Lloyd Christopher Lao, and other public officers and private individuals tagged in the multi-billion Pharmally scandal,” she said.
“The Ombudsman's move was a validation of the findings and recommendations in the draft committee report of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee - something that I am proud of,” added the lawmaker.
Senate President Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri echoed the same sentiment: “I acknowledge the Court’s decision, appreciating its guidance on how the Senate should handle contempt cases moving forward.”
“We, in the Senate, recognize the decision of the Supreme Court on the case involving Pharmally executives and, at the same time, welcome the decision of the Highest Court affirming the Senate’s power to hold witnesses in contempt during hearings in aid of legislation,” the Senate leader pointed out.
To be clear, Zubiri noted that the SC did not invalidate the Senate’s power to cite witnesses in contempt, as well as all the grounds for contempt under Senate Rules.
“These are intact. The Court merely said that ‘considering the broad definition of giving false or evasive testimony, the witness must be given a chance to explain why his or her testimony is not false or evasive.’
The Court upheld the broad power of the Senate to hold witnesses in contempt as inherent in its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation,” added the Senate chief.
Zubiri also said it is essential to note that—contrary to misconceptions—the recent decision doesn't undermine the Senate's power.
“The Court merely underscored the importance of ensuring fairness in contempt proceedings. In essence, while the Senate has the authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, it also has the means to enforce compliance with its processes, including citing witnesses in contempt,” he said.
“Let it be clear that all hearings, including those in question and every Senate inquiry, have a primary objective of uncovering the truth in aid of legislation, and contributing to the legislative process,” he further said.