The Office of the Vice President (OVP) asserted Thursday its right to refuse to participate in an inquiry by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability because of alleged “clear lack of legislative objective.”
The OVP submitted a position paper dated October 17 to the House of Representatives, citing the case of Calida v. Trillanes, where the Supreme Court held “that persons invited to appear before a legislative inquiry do so as resource persons and not as accused in a criminal proceeding.”
It was the same argument earlier raised by Vice President Sara Duterte during her short-lived appearance in the September 18 hearing by the same House committee, which is chaired by Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua.
The position paper pointed out that the terms “inquiry” and “investigation” are used interchangeably by lawmakers. It argued that labeling these proceedings as “investigations” suggests a departure from their original purpose of aiding legislation, implying an overreach into judicial-like functions.
The OVP emphasized that this interpretation conflicts with the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It stressed that the House of Representatives (HOR) does not possess judicial or prosecutorial authority, as these powers are vested solely in the courts.
“We respectfully take the position that the deliberation or hearing is unnecessary and that the attendance of the officials and personnel of the Office of the Vice President is therefore not needed,” the OVP stated in the position paper.
Furthermore, the OVP stressed that the “inquiry should be in aid of legislation” and “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedures.”
“The data that the Honorable Rep. Valeriano requires could easily be verified through COA (Commission on Audit) reports,” the OVP added, referring to committee member and Manila 2nd District Rep. Rolando Valeriano.
“In other words, it becomes completely unnecessary for the Committee to belabor and pursue a legislative inquiry into the budget utilization and accomplishment of the Office because the data has already been provided during the budget deliberations in the Committee on Appropriations, and that further information needed may be verified through the COA,” the OVP stated.
The OVP argued that the issue regarding its budget utilization is already under review by the Supreme Court. As such, it falls under the principle of sub judice—a rule that limits public comments and disclosures about ongoing judicial proceedings to avoid influencing their outcome.
“Such conflicts may unnecessarily create a Constitutional crisis between the HOR and the Supreme Court, which will only prejudice the stability of our democratic systems and the broader interests of the public we serve,” the OVP said.
The House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability resumed its hearing on the alleged unexplained confidential funds Duterte spent during her tenure as Secretary of the Department of Education and with the OVP.
