THE arrest order issued by Senate President Franklin Drilon against associates and alleged dummies of Vice President Jejomar Binay in connection with the ongoing corruption probe in the Senate is legally flawed, according to legal experts.
Rev. Ranhilio Aquino, law dean of San Beda Graduate School, and University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque Jr. made the assessment as Malacañang denied it had a hand in the issuance of arrest orders against 17 people identified with Binay.
Even Justice Secretary Leila de Lima weighed in on the debate and said Binay should just appear in the Senate because he was not immune from suit.
The Binay camp, on the other hand, slammed De Lima for what they described as lack of understanding of the “rule of law” when she insisted that the Vice President is not immune to suit.
Aquino and Roque also questioned the role of the arrests in aiding legislation because, while the issuance of arrest orders is within the Senate’s plenary powers, it should only be used if necessary for its mandate to legislate or create laws.
Both legal educators said the individuals who have been ordered arrested for contempt by the Senate blue ribbon committee can ask relief from the Supreme Court.
“The Senate has to show first that the testimonies of those it has summoned are necessary for legislation. A bare allegation that the hearing is in aid of legislation will not suffice,” Aquino said.
Aquino noted that the subjects of the Senate’s arrest order “can go to court and file certiorari petition questioning the contempt citation.”
Agreeing with Aquino, Roque said: “It’s part of plenary powers of Congress. However, power to investigate was clarified to be for legislative purposes only per ruling of SC in Neri vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. It should not be used for partisan purposes.”
Roque added that the associates of Binay could also run to the Supreme Court just as Romulo Neri did.
In the Neri case, the SC stopped in February 2008 the Senate Blue Ribbon committee from enforcing its arrest order against petitioner who was then chairman of Commission on Higher Education in connection with the $329-million ZTE National Broadband Network deal.
The SC later voided the Senate arrest order because the Senate had abused its authority by ordering Neri’s arrest for contempt despite the non-publication of its rules on procedures.
The Binay camp also slammed De Lima for claiming that the Vice President is not immune to suit.
“DOJ Secretary De Lima should understand the ‘rule of law’ and what it means,” said Binay’s political spokesman Rico Quicho.
Quicho explained that the Ombudsman cannot investigate impeachable officials for an alleged crime except for purposes of impeachment.
“The Constitution also says that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. It is not right for the government or any of its officials to accuse an impeachable official like the President, Vice President, a Supreme Court Justice, or an official of a constitutional office, of a crime like plunder and tell him to explain his innocence.” Quicho added.
Quicho said that putting the burden of proof of innocence on the impeachable official accused of a crime trashes the Constitution and the legal limitation on the powers of the Ombudsman.
He said any such notion from supposedly responsible government officials betrays lack of understanding of the rule of law.
“The statement is nothing more than a cheap sound bite to generate attention to one’s self, especially if the said official harbors political ambitions,” Quicho said.