Ombudsman: Summoning Napoles is Senate’s call

MANILA, Philippines - Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales still thinks making Janet Lim-Napoles face the Senate is a bad idea, but she is leaving the matter for senators to decide.

In a letter to Senate President Franklin Drilon last Friday, Morales declared, “That the Senate is supreme in its own sphere was never meant to be challenged. I thus submit to the collective wisdom of its members.”

However, Morales stood firm on her stand against Napoles’ appearance before the Senate.

Drilon sought the opinion of Morales for the second time in response to the appeal of Senate Blue Ribbon committee chairman Teofisto Guingona III for him to reconsider his decision against signing a subpoena for Napoles.

Morales, in her letter to Drilon, wrote, “Cognizant of the import of the jurisprudence cited by Senator Guingona III, which jurisprudence was early on considered in arriving at my comment in my Sept. 23, 2013 letter to you that under the therein stated considerations ‘it would not be advisable at this time, for Mrs. Napoles to testify on what (she) knows about the alleged scam,’ I am not inclined to modify said comment.”

Speaking before the Makati Business Club yesterday, Drilon again said: “It was out of prudence and caution that I decided to defer to the advice and recommendation of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales not to require, at this time, Janet Lim-Napoles’ appearance before the Senate Blue Ribbon committee.

“While my position appears unpopular to media and a public eager to see Napoles grilled by the Blue Ribbon committee, I have decided on the side of caution. I would rather err on the side of prudence.

“This is not a question of which institution is supreme: the Senate or the Office of the Ombudsman. It is not the supremacy of either office, but supremacy of the rule of law. There is no question that serving the ends of justice and making our justice system work is our primary objective.” Guingona said he has a number of options that he would use at the appropriate time if Drilon continues to refuse to sign the subpoena for the appearance of Napoles.

Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto said the Senate as a whole would eventually decide the matter of issuing a subpoena for Napoles.

“Legally, we have the authority (to summon Napoles),” he said.

“I also listened to the Senate President and the Ombudsman who cited the timing (of her appearance), but clearly, it would have to be decided by the entire Senate.

“I will listen to all views. Like I said, I am sure the majority of us want to listen to her testimony, if she will say anything or not.”

Guingona could bring the matter up in an all-senators caucus or in plenary, where a vote would be taken by all senators, Recto said.

Sen. Francis Escudero has also disagreed with Drilon because the Senate has always decided issues related to the subpoena of witnesses to its hearings.

However, he said he also understood the position of Drilon.

Sen. Grace Poe said she expects the matter to be put to a vote by the Senate as a whole.

“Ongoing judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation,” she said. “This was upheld several times in the Supreme Court. I agree that we should put this to a vote.”

Sen. Sergio Osmeña III, Blue Ribbon committee vice chairman, said he understood the situation of Drilon.

“I think that the Senate has the power to subpoena her,” he said. “I think also that the Ombudsman has the right to opine. If you make her testify (we might be) prematurely telegraphing our punches. So in her point of view, she’d rather not.” However, Osmeña said forcing Napoles to appear before the Blue Ribbon committee hearings could end up being a waste of time based on the pronouncements of her lawyer that she would not say anything at the hearings.

Napoles could just end up invoking her right to remain silent and leaving the Senate with nothing to work with in the end, he added.

Drilon and Guingona should just talk things over and come up with some sort of agreement on the issue, Osmeña said.

Sen. Nancy Binay said pursuing Napoles’ appearance before the committee would no longer be necessary and an exercise in futility. She would rather that the hearings move on to the rest of the non-government organizations mentioned in the special audit report of the Commission on Audit, apart from those affiliated with Napoles, she added.

Binay said other groups involved in similarly spurious activities must now be exposed in the hearings.

She would most probably abstain when a vote is called to decide on whether to issue a subpoena for Napoles, she added.

Escudero proposed that the Senate just wait for Napoles to come out with her written testimony. The Senate could just subpoena those documents and use them for the hearings instead of bringing Napoles herself to the Senate, he added.

 â€“ With Sheila Crisostomo