DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Aching for due process
Sunday, 04 19, 2009
I had a long talk over the weekend with my good friend Rolex Suplico, vice-governor of Iloilo, regarding the Order of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges (CET) declaring the complaint of Senator Jamby Madrigal against former Senate president Manuel Villar as sufficient in form and substance.
The complaint of Madrigal has to do with the alleged use by Villar of his position and influence to relocate or reroute a road extension project in such a way that the road, seemingly by happenstance, would now cut across his properties, and to negotiate the overpriced road rights-of-way through such properties.
Suplico and I are in agreement on one thing: the Order betrays the lack of impartiality on the part of the CET – or, at least, those who signed the Order. [Senators Loren Legarda and Mar Roxas refused to sign the Order]. And I may add: the premature release of the Order - before it could be deliberated by the entire membership of the committee and signed by those who agree with its contents - is a trial balloon to test which way the winds of public reaction blow.
Whoever released the resolution was either deliberately careless or ill-advised, and deserves to reap the scorn and derision of the public for such recklessness. Rather than build up a case against Villar, the Order – or what its contents purport to convey – has weakened the case against Villar and effectively ousted the CET of its jurisdiction to investigate the complaint of Madrigal.
Section 17 of the Rules governing investigations by the CET clearly states that “After the Committee receives a sworn or verified complaint against any Member of the Senate, it shall give notice to the respondent that it will determine within five days form receipt of the complaint whether the complaint has complied both in form and substance...”
Simply put, the determination of sufficiency in form and substance of a complaint can be made only after deliberations by the CET. Absent such deliberations, absolutely no resolution or order can be validly adopted, much less released.
As it now stands, the Order signed and released without the benefit of the entire membership of the CET discussing the merits and demerits of the complaint of Madrigal, is already a pre-judgment of Villar’s guilt, and effectively denies Villar of his right to adduce evidence to prevent a full-blown hearing before the CET. Suplico is right when he insists on “deliberations first before a decision, and not the other way around.”
Before the CET, Villar does not stand a ghost of a chance of expecting any dose of impartiality. Its chairman already has delivered a privilege speech on the matter (or one closely related to it). Four of the five regular members of the CET are themselves presidential wannabes like Villar. So, what verdict could Villar expect but crucifixion, in order that he shall have lost all credibility to stand for election in 2010?
Until now, I still wonder why the rule in many parliaments disqualifying a member (of an ethics committee) from participating in the initial review or investigation of any complaint filed or initiated by him, is not being observed at the Senate. The Senate Rules could be silent on this disqualification rule, but there is always this unwritten rule nonetheless: a member may disqualify himself, at his discretion, e.g., out of a sense of delicadeza.
It could even be conjectured that the CET, as presently constituted, will milk the issue as far as it possibly could, and leave it twisting in the wind, without any final resolution, even until Congress adjourns in February next year for the national campaign period.
These days at the Senate, knowing nods and mischievous winks are exchanged among staffers and cognoscenti every time they note that Proposed Senate Resolution No. 706 was filed way back on October 8, 2008 - yet it is only now that the CET is moving on the complaint of Madrigal! Translation: through this delay, Villar’s presumptive opponents in 2010 sitting in the CET can possibly serialize the hearings, keep the issue alive in the public’s mind without necessarily resolving it, to the point that Villar will be hard-pressed to defend himself against the accusation of graft, corruption and impropriety.
Suplico, who is counsel for Villar, should pursue another tack. He should counsel Villar to himself propose in plenary that he is willing to submit himself to the judgment of his peers, before a special committee created for the purpose of investigating the complaint of Madrigal. The special committee should not include among its members any one of those perceived to be running for the presidency in the 2010 elections. And the special committee should be given a deadline to finish its work, say, 30 days from its constitution and well before November 30, 2009, which the Commission on Elections has fixed as the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy.
It is Villar’s right to boycott the proceedings before the CET. After all, he cannot expect to be heard and tried by an impartial body. Being a committee that has been ousted of its jurisdiction for not being impartial, the CET should not expect Villar to submit his Answer to the complaint of Madrigal.
Impartiality is at the root of due process. As my students in law school introduced to the precise application of the Bill of Rights very well know, due process is “nothing more and nothing less than the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.”
Due process can only be observed and honored by unbiased minds, by senators shorn of arbitrariness, who will not benefit whichever way the special committee will resolve the complaint of Madrigal against Villar.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment