Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero said he already signed the subpoenas for two resource persons whose presence is being demanded by the foreign relations panel but decided to have the chamber’s legal department review them first instead of transmitting them directly to the intended recipients.
During yesterday’s Kapihan sa Senado, he disclosed that the subpoenas currently under review are addressed to Philippine Air Force (PAF) Lt. Gen. Arthur Cordura and Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon of the National Prosecution Service (NPS).
Escudero pointed out that there are two Supreme Court decisions that upheld the power of the Executive Department to invoke executive privilege, not only in answering certain questions, but also in their attendance to congressional investigations.
The Senate President said he is trying to avert a constitutional crisis that could arise if the committee of Senator Imee Marcos continues to insist on the presence of the officials despite Malacañang’s steadfast insistence on executive privilege.
“The last thing I want to happen, amidst all the turmoil in our country, is to add to it by creating a constitutional crisis related to the subpoena on one hand and the invocation of executive privilege on the other,” the Senate President said in Filipino.
He revealed that he received three letters from the Executive Secretary invoking executive privilege regarding the attendance of certain officials at Senate hearings.
Furthermore, Escudero said that the findings presented by Senator Marcos remain preliminary and have not undergone committee or plenary voting to be considered the Senate’s official position.
“It is clearly just preliminary. The committee members have not yet voted on it. The Senate as a whole has also not voted to declare it as its official findings on the matter,” he said.
Escudero also stated that it was not for him to determine whether the findings were sufficient or not.
However, the Senate President acknowledged that cabinet officials’ absence from the hearings was a lost opportunity for clarification.
Still, he noted that they could answer questions through media interviews or other platforms while respecting executive privilege.
Meanwhile, Senator Marcos lamented the absence of Cabinet officials in the second Senate committee hearing into the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte.
The foreign relations committee chair presided over the hearing with only a few senators and representatives from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the academe present.
“I respect the doctrine of executive privilege, but let us remember that it cannot be used as a blanket shield or cover to avoid the Senate’s questions and invitation,” she said.
For his part, Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who made his first physical appearance in the Senate since Duterte’s arrest last month, insisted on summoning the executive officials while raising concerns over a looming constitutional crisis.
“What the officials from the Executive branch of government did was a total snub, as far as we’re concerned. It is a blatant disregard for the doctrine of checks and balances of our government. If they don’t want to attend the hearing, it means they don’t want to be checked by a co-equal branch of government,” he argues.
Similarly, Senator Cristopher Go questioned the legality and due process of former President Rodrigo’s arrest during yesterday’s hearing.
“If you had only followed the law and the proper process, you would not have allowed Tatay Digong to be flown out in just fourteen hours,” he said.
Go emphasized that the Philippine government had no legal obligation to detain Duterte, as the notice issued was a mere Diffusion Notice, unverified and unapproved by the Interpol Secretariat.
He criticized the government’s contradictory stance, arguing that if the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction in the country, Interpol’s involvement should not have been acknowledged.
As this developed, the ICC has developed a classification for supposed victims of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs for purposes of prioritizing them during the trial.
In a document dated April 2, 2025, the ICC’s Division of Judicial Services stated that Group A will consist of applicants who clearly qualify as victims; Group B will consist of applicants who clearly do not qualify as victims; and Group C will consist of applicants for whom the Registry could not make a clear determination for any reason.
“The A-B-C Approach offers practical benefits, as observed in the aforementioned proceedings. This equally applies to the present proceedings. It allows the parties and the Chamber to focus on pre-assessed unclear or ambiguous issues arising from victim applications in a grouped fashion,” the ICC said.
“Importantly, the A-B-C Approach prioritizes meaningful victim participation while safeguarding the victims’ well-being and dignity without causing undue delays,” it added.