Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua (left), Vice President Sara Duterte (Facebook)

House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability Chairman Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua flat out rejected Vice President Sara Duterte attempt to join in the discussions on how the confidential funds probe should be carried out.

This, as the good government panel held its seventh hearing Monday, Nov. 25 the alleged misuse of P612.5-million worth of confidential and intelligence funds (CIFs) by offices under Vice President Duterte's leadership, specifically the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) .

In short, Duterte is the focal point of the hearing. 

During Monday's proceedings, SAGIP Party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, an ally of the Vice President’s, complained about Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville "Jinky Bitrics" Luistro's liberal use of hypothetical questions in her interpellation of OVP Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) Gina Acosta.

"I know that our rules, procedure in aid of legislation includes suppletorily, the use of rules of court. Under the rules of court, your honor, which are rules being used in the courts of law, hypothetical questions aren't allowed to be asked. Are we supposed to insist on asking hypothetical questions?" Marcoleta asked the chairman.

Wanting to chime in, Duterte asked to be recognized by Chua. "Mr. Chair, can I answer as head of agency of the [OVP] as well?" she said.

"With respect to the?" said Chua, who looked somewhat perplexed.

"To the comment/ manifestation of Congressman Marcoleta?" answered the Vice President.

"No, you are not allowed. Please continue [your interpellation], Congresswoman Luistro,"  a deadpan Chua replied. Duterte, looking annoyed, simply turned off her microphone.

Chua and Marcoleta ended up resolving the matter on the use of hypothetical questions between themselves. 

Referring to Acosta, Marcoleta said: "The witness is being asked hypothetical questions. These are disallowed in the courts of law. If you're using the rules of court suppletorily, what is the purpose of asking hypothetical questions?"

The Manila lawmaker cited the committee’s internal rules in his response to Marcoleta. 

"Under our internal rules, the rules of procedure...under Section 16, it provides that rules of procedure and evidence in any meeting of the committee, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and the Committee shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts, in each case, speedily and objectively without regard to technicality of law or procedure," Chua said.

Marcoleta argued that facts cannot be gathered by asking speculative questions to resource persons like Acosta.

"We're talking about facts. We're not talking about hypothetical situations here. We're not supposed to be getting facts out of speculations. We cannot speculate on the questions that should be asked and answered. This will not benefit the Ccmmittee., Mr. Chair," sad the SAGIP solon.

Chua said Marcoleta's manifestations were "noted".

Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel commented that discussing all possible scenarios is important in holding a hearing in aid of legislation. 

"We can't have good laws kung hindi natin pag-uusapan paano yan pwede ipatupad, paano yan pwede maabuso. Which means yung nagiging line of questioning ng ating mga colleagues are essential to the conduct of our proceedings sa committee," said the Makabayan solon.

(We can't have good laws if we can't talk about how these will be implemented, how these can be abused. Which means the lines of questioning of our colleagues are essential to the conduct of our proceedings in committee.)