Officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) once more declined to appear before the House good government committee on Tuesday, Nov. 5, citing as reason the delayed transmission of a subpoena and questions on the panel’s jurisdiction and legislative agenda, among others.
In a position paper received by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability on Nov. 5, the OVP executives provided the same reasons they wrote in a similar position paper sent to the committee on Oct. 17 when they likewise skipped the committee’s hearing.
However, this time, they also questioned the delayed transmittal of subpoena dated Oct. 17 issued for an Oct. 28 hearing, which was rescheduled to Nov. 5.
The officers refused the subpoena because it was issued for a “past hearing schedule” that was also reset, while a Nov. 1 dated invitation for the Nov. 5 hearing was only received on Nov. 4 because the OVP’s office was closed during the holidays, the position paper stated.
The paper also reiterated an earlier statement both by Vice President Sara Duterte and the OVP officials to “terminate” the inquiry that was based on Manila 2nd Districr Rep. Rolando Valeriano’s Privilege Speech No. 379 and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro’s motu proprio inquiry into the OVP’s alleged misuse of public funds.
In the first part of the five-page position paper, the OVP executives cited the Philippine Constitution in questioning the House panel’s power to conduct inquiry.
They said that an inquiry “should be in aid of legislation,” “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedures, and that “that rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”
“In the absence of any of the requisites stated above, the inquiry can no longer be said as being in aid of legislation,” they added.
With no “clear legislative objective or contemplated legislation,” the position paper stressed that the inquiry “is also violative of the rights of the resource persons.”
“There was no announcement or information from the Committee on the definite subject matter or law to be crafted, amended or repealed with the commencement of the proceedings. It was not part of the invitations,” it explained.
“Later on, we observed that the subject matter of the proceedings has substantially changed, and discussions are no longer germane to the original matter for referral. This provides an unfair setting for resource persons. It should be noted that a resource person must possess the proper competence to answer the questions of the Committee,” the executives stressed.
They also questioned the jurisdiction of the committee, maintaining that it is the Committee on Appropriations that has “proper jurisdiction” on the issues being raised by the panel.
“In fact, P.S. No. 379 refers to matters that pertain directly and principally relating to the expenditures of the national government, which should be properly taken up in the Committee on Appropriation,” the paper said.
“Considering that budget utilization is a matter directly and principally relating to the expenditures of the national government, and that the appropriate committee (Committee on Appropriations) has already terminated its deliberations, no other committee can take up the same subject matter appropriately belonging to it,” it added, stressing that there was no proof of “malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance” in the OVP.
The position paper also noted that resource persons have a right to decline an invitation, citing a Supreme Court ruling that said invited resource persons are not compelled to accept an invitation.
They furthered that they cannot comment on issues already before the Supreme Court because doing so “may directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.”
Instead, the OVP executives assured the committee of their “continuing cooperation and coordination with the Commission on Audit (COA) in matters that pertain to the ongoing audit process.”
The position paper was signed by lawyers Zuleika Lopez, Rosalynne Sanchez, and Sunshine Fajarda. Other signatories were Lemuel Ortonio, Julieta Villadelrey, Gina Acosta, and Edward Fajarda.
Earlier, Duterte said she assured her employees that she will be with them even in detention if they decide to appear before the House panel.