Who’s afraid of Janet? Senate resets ‘pork’ caucus

MANILA, Philippines - Who’s afraid of Janet-Lim Napoles?

That is the question of Senators Francis Escudero and Ramon Revilla Jr. as they dared Senate President Franklin Drilon yesterday to sign the subpoena that would compel Napoles to face the Senate Blue Ribbon committee and shed light on the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam, which she reportedly masterminded.

This developed as Drilon postponed to tomorrow a caucus originally set yesterday aimed at reaching a consensus on the issuance of a subpoena to Napoles.

A memorandum from Drilon’s office signed by his chief of staff Renato Bantug Jr. said the postponement was “due to the unavailability of some members on account of sickness/official mission abroad.” The caucus begins “after the roll call,” the memo read.

Escudero noted that it would have been better had Drilon merely signed the subpoena as recommended by Blue Ribbon chairman Teofisto Guingona III.

“Let’s put it this way, if there are no reservations or problems at least on the part of Sen. Drilon, all he has to do is sign it,” Escudero said. “There is no need for a caucus unless there are some other concerns that Drilon is weighing in, that is why he is seeking for a caucus.”

“My position is if a consensus cannot be arrived at and it would be put into a vote, then it should be made before the plenary,” Escudero added.

He said he believes Guingona is left with no choice but to raise the Napoles issue on the floor.

“If there would be no consensus in a caucus, then TG (Guingona) can exercise his rights to bring the issue before the plenary,” Escudero said.

“The only legal remedy available for TG is plenary since (the) plenary can always override the decision made by any single senator,” he added. He maintained that no senator had openly objected to the issuance of subpoena to Napoles.

The other issues likely to be discussed in the caucus tomorrow are those involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

The senators were first notified of the caucus last Oct. 9. Congress resumed session yesterday after a two-week break.

Drilon said he wants all the senators to be present in tomorrow’s caucus because serious matters would be discussed.

Senators Ralph Recto and Miriam Defensor-Santiago were sick while Senators Bam Aquino and Ferdinand Marcos Jr were abroad. Sen. Lito Lapid is on official business.

During plenary session, Senate minority leader Juan Ponce Enrile manifested that he would not be available tomorrow, citing an important appointment.

Guingona said he respects Drilon’s decision but “I am firm on my decision for JNL (Janet Lim-Napoles) to appear before the Senate.”

Guingona had a closed-door meeting with some senators including Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV to discuss possible scenarios in case the Senate President insists on not issuing a subpoena.

Revilla, who is among the senators facing plunder for his alleged misuse of his PDAF from 2007 to 2009, said he does not see any reason why Napoles should not be made to personally face a Senate probe.

Revilla said he is not afraid of what Napoles might say since he is convinced he has done nothing wrong.

“Maybe it’s high time that Napoles is made to face the Senate so the truth will come and whoever is found liable is punished and jailed,” he said.

“The truth will always come out. The truth will always prevail,” he said.

Revilla said he would have voted for the issuance of subpoena had the caucus not been postponed.

Deputy minority leader Vicente Sotto III, meanwhile, said the six-member minority group met yesterday to discuss their stand on the matter.

Sen. Nancy Binay, a member of the minority, said they met before the session but that their discussion touched on issues other than the row with Drilon over the issuance of subpoena to Napoles.

“We also have to discuss the FOI and also the budget,” Binay added.

Binay said she would rather wait for the discussions among her colleagues before making a stand on the issue.

“I want her to come here but we have to be realistic if she still has something to say… there are concerns on security, the expenses on securing her,” Binay said.

Assert Senate power

Sen. Santiago made it clear she would vote for the issuance of a subpoena to Napoles, not so much because she thinks it would help the inquiry but to assert the power of the institution to compel individuals to stand before it

“In effect, the Constitution gives this power to the Senate. It might upset the delicate system of checks and balances if the Senate itself dilutes this power by seeking an external agency such as the Ombudsman to express a legal opinion,” Santiago said.

Drilon earlier sought an opinion from Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on whether the chamber could compel Napoles to appear and testify.

In her response to Drilon, Morales said that she does not believe it is a good idea for Napoles to appear before the Senate at this time.

The Office of the Ombudsman is currently reviewing the case filed by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice against Napoles and several other individuals – including three senators – for plunder in relation to the pork barrel fund.

“On the one hand, if the ombudsman opines that we should issue subpoena, then that would set a bad precedent. It would constitute the concession by the Senate to an external agency to determine how we shall exercise our power,” Santiago said.

“On the other hand, if the ombudsman opines that to issue subpoena would not be advisable, if we go ahead and issue the subpoena, then we show lack of comity to the ombudsman,” she added.