HOUSE leaders have filed a bill that would stop the anti-graft court, the Sandiganbayan, from ordering the preventive suspension of congressmen who are being investigated for crimes that they allegedly committed in their previous government position.
HB 3605, filed by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and co-authored by House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, House Minority Leader Danilo Suarez and Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque Jr.—comes on the heels of two preventive suspension orders from the anti-graft court on Reps. Lray Villafuerte Jr. of Camarines Sur and Amado Espino of Pangasinan. Both have been accused of crimes that they allegedly committed when they were still governors of their respective provinces.
A preventive suspension is intended to keep a defendant from using his or her office to harass potential witnesses or conceal, destroy or tamper documentary evidence.
The new bill seeks to amend the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, so that in cases where the “incumbent officer is no longer connected with the office wherein the offense was committed, the preventive suspension order shall no longer be implemented.”
In an explanatory note for HB 3605, the authors said a preventive suspension is usually imposed to prevent an accused from influencing potential witnesses or tampering with government records.
“The change in circumstances of the public officer effectively removes this threat, making the provision in line with the spirit and intent of the law,” the House leaders stated in the measure.
This singular explanatory note carries a heavy burden, for it seeks to justify what otherwise appears to be self-serving legislation drafted primarily for the benefit of the lawmakers themselves.
Closer examination of the explanation exposes it as a specious one that ignores reality. While it is true that a congressman, for example, might no longer have direct access to files he may have had when he was a governor, it would be ridiculous to suggest that he or she no longer has influence in the locality simply because he was elected to a different office. Would a congressman not be able to influence—or intimidate—potential witnesses, simply because he was no longer the governor? We think not.
That the bill was filed so soon after two House members were ordered suspended suggests the importance congressional leaders place on their own self-interest. We imagine there are more urgent matters that Congress should take up, such as the freedom of information (FOI) bill—but that’s the same bill that Alvarez said would not pass this year because the lawmakers had their hands full with deliberations on the national budget. Given the full congressional workload, it’s truly remarkable that Speaker Alvarez has somehow managed to so speedily draft HB 3605 and so swiftly drummed up support for his measure. The contrast suggests not only that lawmakers can act quickly when their own self-interest is at stake, but that they view themselves as somehow above all others by virtue of their office, and that they deserve special rules.
