The Senate’s inquiry into the national broadband network controversy took a bizarre twist yesterday when Sen. Joker Arroyo raised a howl over his colleagues’ alleged violation of the “code of silence” in executive sessions.
Acting on Arroyo’s motion, the Senate ethics committee prepares to investigate the “leak” in the executive session during which former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director-general Romulo Neri supposedly was about to drop another “bombshell” in the broadband issue but stopped when the senator reportedly intervened.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported the incident, quoting four senators who declined to be named.
In a statement, PDI said it stands by its story saying that under Republic Act 53 or the Sotto Law, it “cannot be compelled to reveal the identities of its sources since the information related to the Inquirer was given in confidence and on condition of anonymity.”
The executive session took place last week after a grueling Senate hearing on the $329-million NBN deal with ZTE Corp. of China. At the hearing, Neri confirmed to senators an alleged attempt by then elections chief Benjamin Abalos to bribe him with P200 million to make him endorse the ZTE contract.
Senators Francis Joseph Escudero, Noynoy Aquino, Juan Ponce Enrile and Miriam Defensor Santiago supported Arroyo’s call for an investigation.
Arroyo said the report was “completely false.”
“The Senate must conduct an inquiry on the violation of its long established rules and enduring practices, otherwise, no one will believe the confidentiality and sancrosanctness of executive sessions,” Arroyo said in his two-page resolution.
Arroyo recalled that Senate President Manuel Villar Jr. reiterated during the executive session the time-honored rule on silence.
“That is the sanctity of the executive sessions. That has been compromised because of the Inquirer report,” Arroyo added.
Interpellating Arroyo’s privilege speech on the issue, Enrile said the Senate may compel the reporter to attend a legislative inquiry but not force her to reveal her sources.
“Precisely, what I am saying is this, how can we now compel our resource persons to reveal information which we say that is confidential, if we cannot enforce the rule on our members and on media?” he asked.
Enrile pointed out that a member of the media could be held for “indirect contempt” citing a precedent at the Supreme Court.
“What the President and what the SC can do, this House can do in the exercise of its legislative powers and prerogatives,” Enrile said.