House orders detention of 4 OVP, ex-DepEd officials for snubbing hearings
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 11 November) — The Committee on Good Governance and Accountability of the House of Representatives on Monday, November 11, cited two officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and two former Department of Education (DepEd) executives in contempt and ordered them detained for continuously defying to attend the ongoing inquiry on the alleged misuse of public funds.
These are Lemuel Ortonio (OVP assistant secretary / assistant chief of staff), Gina Acosta (OVP special disbursing officer), Atty. Sunshine Charry A. Fajarda (former DepEd assistant secretary), and Edward Fajarda (former DepEd special disbursing officer).
Monday’s inquiry marked the fifth time these OVP executives did not attend the hearings.
On the other hand, OVP executives Atty. Rosalynne l. Sanchez, Julieta Villadelrey, and Kevin Jerome Teñido appeared at Monday’s proceedings.
As for Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, chief of staff of Vice President Sara Duterte, the committee will send her another subpoena testificandum to require her to attend the next hearing.
Based on her excuse letter addressed to the committee, Lopez said she needed to travel to the United States from November 4 to 16 to attend to her ailing aunt.
According to an OVP statement, Duterte approved Lopez’s US trip, even if it was personal and unrelated to her employment.
Lopez left Manila for Los Angeles aboard Philippine Airlines flight PR 102 at 7:31 p.m. on November 4, a day before the scheduled investigation in aid of legislation by the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability of the House of Representatives.
House Deputy Speaker David Suarez, representative of Quezon Province’s 2nd District, noted that it is important for these resource speakers, particularly Lopez, to attend the inquiry to shed light on issues pertaining to the OVP’s alleged misuse of funds.
“The committee has gone over and beyond what is usually practiced by committees when it comes to invitations of resource persons and witnesses to attend our hearing. Given there is defiance by these resource persons willfully not to attend our hearings, I think it is incumbent to exercise our power so that we ensure in succeeding hearings na talagang dumalo na sila (that they will attend),” he said.
Santa Rosa City Representative Danilo “Dan” Fernandez questioned Lopez’s letter, saying it was “unacceptable because it was a clear act of evading” the House investigation in aid of legislation.
In a position paper received by the committee on November 5, the OVP officials questioned the authority of the committee to conduct the probe, saying that the ongoing House inquiry is not conducted “in aid of legislation” and that the Committee on Good Governance and Accountability “has no jurisdiction to make an inquiry.”
They also maintained that as officials of the OVP, they “may decline the invitations of the committee and validly refuse to take part in the proceedings.”
The OVP officials, however, maintained that the ongoing proceedings must have a “clear legislative objective or contemplated legislation,” and that a draft bill should be included in the invitation to the resource speakers.
“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,” the position paper reads.
The OVP executives also claimed that the discussions in the hearings have substantially changed as these “are no longer germane to the original matter,” saying the inquiry violates due process as there was “a lack of proper notice of the definite scope of their appearance.”
“It should be noted that a resource person must possess the proper competence to answer the questions of the committee. Unbridled and publicized discussions on matters that remain to be undefined, like what legislation is intended to be crafted, pose a risk to resource persons,” the group said.
The executives told the committee that it should have “provided a description of the law it intends to draft, amend, or repeal in aid of legislation.” (Antonio L. Colina / MindaNews)
No comments:
Post a Comment