Even Arroyo allies in House oppose Palace order

First posted 02:27am (Mla time) Sept 30, 2005
By Michael Lim Ubac, Philip C. Tubeza
Inquirer News Service

EVEN President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s staunch allies in the House of Representatives are opposed to her order barring members of the executive branch from testifying at congressional inquiries without her consent.

In a joint statement issued yesterday, Speaker Jose de Venecia and other House leaders said there was “no valid reason” for the issuance of Executive Order No. 464.

They said that while they respected Ms Arroyo’s “inherent right” under the Constitution to claim “executive privilege,” the chamber would continue to invite officials from the executive branch “in aid of legislation and by virtue of the people’s right to public information.”

They also said the House had never “abused” or showed “disrespect” to anyone invited as a witness or resource person at its hearings which, they pointed out, had never been used for “partisan politics.”

“The House sees no valid reason why the President should not consent to the appearance in the House of her department heads and officers...” De Venecia and company said.

“We maintain that the House shall respect the executive department’s prerogatives and expect it to equally respect the prerogatives of the House,” they added.

The other signatories to the statement were House Majority Floor Leader Prospero Nograles, Deputy Speaker Gerry Salapuddin, Camarines Sur Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr., chair of the appropriations committee; Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco, chair of the foreign relations committee; Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte and Bukidnon Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri.

Not only ally

At the House plenary session on Wednesday night, not one ally of the President rose to support EO 464.

Akbayan party-list Representative Loretta Ann “Etta” Rosales delivered a privilege speech denouncing the EO and moved that the chamber immediately “condemn” it for being unconstitutional.

But in the absence of a copy of the order, Rosales acceded to the request of Deputy Speaker Raul del Mar for her and other opposition lawmakers to defer any action until the next session on Monday.

Del Mar, who presided over the session, conceded that the EO was “a matter that affect[ed] the entire [House],” but pointed out that the planned resolution “should reflect [the chamber’s] entire sentiment.”

House Minority Leader Francis Escudero said that in the absence of formal action by the plenary, the Speaker could write Ms Arroyo expressing the sentiments of the House.

In her interpellation, Akbayan Representative Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel said: “Does [EO 464] not constitute obstruction of justice ... by the highest official in the land?”

To which Rosales said: “It would appear so.”

’Insult to the House’

Asked about the position of the chamber, Acting Majority Leader Arthur Defensor said he would “not second guess” the matter. He said the leader of the majority should first consult with its members before making a stand.

“But it’s an insult to the House,” Parañaque Representative Roilo Golez said. “It’s our duty to stand and defend the dignity of our chamber. This will trigger a constitutional crisis.”

Golez said the matter should concern the presiding officer because the EO was “a direct assault on the committee on good government” and would make the committee “inutile.”

The committee on good government, which is chaired by Defensor, investigates corruption and malfeasance in the government. Its counterpart in the Senate is the blue ribbon committee.

According to Golez, annotations in the House rules on the privilege hour indicated that “it’s only in cases of public interest that a Cabinet member should not be allowed to appear before the House.”

“I can’t see what public interest will be satisfied [by EO 464], unless the objective is to challenge and assault the integrity and constitutional power of the House,” said Golez, who bolted the majority at the height of the inquiry into the “Hello, Garci” scandal.

Slap on Congress

With no one from the majority willing to debate the opposition, Escudero rose and said the EO was “a slap on the face of Congress” and “infringe[d] upon the integrity, power and prerogatives of the House.”

“This puts in direct collision the executive with the legislative branch. It will clip the powers of Congress insofar as the oversight function is concerned...” he said.

To mollify the opposition, Del Mar said the points raised on the floor would be “taken into consideration together with the rules of the privilege hour.”

Yesterday, Escudero said the opposition was considering the idea of challenging EO 464 before the Supreme Court. But he said he and his colleagues would want to give Ms Arroyo the chance to withdraw the order.

Cavite Representative Gilbert Remulla warned that with EO 464, “anything that had to do with good government, the abuse of executive power and the misapplication or non-enforcement of laws would be affected.”

Bayan Muna party-list Representative Joel Virador said the EO was meant to deter potential “whistle-blowers,” especially those who would testify about alleged cheating in the May 2004 presidential election.

Iloilo Representative Rolex Suplico urged the President to revoke the EO and sack its authors.

“The President was ill-advised when she issued EO 464. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for it,” he said.

‘In aid of persecution’

But in a phone interview yesterday, Surigao del Sur Representative Prospero Pichay said EO 464 was aimed at doing away with so many investigations.

House inquiries were being abused, he said, adding that “they should be labeled in aid of persecution.”

Pichay said the EO could be justified by precedents, jurisprudence and the Constitution.

He said then President Corazon Aquino had issued a similar directive -- Memorandum Order No. 112, signed by then Acting Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig Jr. on Sept. 29, 1987.

Per that memo, “the President’s consent is required for all such appearances” of heads of departments, Pichay said.