“The legislature must allow Ong to invoke her rights during any potentially incriminating questioning”
(Part 1)
Can a single woman’s fight to remain silent topple the authority of Congress?
Katherine Cassandra Ong, entangled in the shadowy world of offshore gaming, has drawn battle lines with Philippine lawmakers.
As she turns to the Supreme Court for protection, the stage is set for a showdown between personal liberty and public accountability.
Ong’s legal predicaments
Ferdinand Topacio, a lawyer renowned for representing high-profile figures entangled in legal battles, has often walked a fine line between staunch defense of clients and pushing legal boundaries.
His reputation as a tenacious attorney makes him the ideal representative for Ong, who finds herself at the center of a legislative inquiry into illicit activities surrounding the POGO industry.
Ong, as the representative of Lucky South 99 in Porac, Pampanga, is now fighting for her Constitutional right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination during legislative hearings.
However, her refusal to fully cooperate with both Senate and House inquiries led to a contempt charge, culminating in her detention after a brief arrest in Indonesia.
Legislative oversight, intended to serve the public by holding individuals accountable, has often been criticized for overreach – especially when its proceedings appear more punitive than investigatory.
Ong’s petition to the Supreme Court is rooted in her argument the legislative probes into POGOs, and specifically her involvement, infringe upon her Constitutional rights.
Topacio and Ong’s strategy
Topacio has carefully positioned Ong’s case as a Constitutional battle.
Ong invokes two fundamental protections under the 1987 Constitution:
1. Right to Remain Silent (Article III, Section 12(1)) and
2. Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article III, Section 17).
Ong asserts these rights are inviolable even in legislative proceedings.
Topacio’s main argument is that Ong is willing to attend the hearings as a gesture of respect toward Congress but will invoke her Constitutional right to remain silent to prevent self-incrimination.
Topacio argues that once this right is invoked, no further questions should be posed to her, and legislative bodies must honor this.
Precedent for this argument can be found in Sabio v. Gordon (2006), where the Supreme Court stated the right against self-incrimination can be invoked during legislative inquiries when an incriminating question is posed.
Additionally, Romero II v. Senate Committee on Labor further cemented that individuals have no duty to pre-emptively cooperate in a manner that would incriminate themselves.
From an ethical standpoint, Topacio argues that legislative bodies are not courts, and their primary function is to create laws, not prosecute individuals.
To respect due process and uphold Constitutional rights, the legislature must allow Ong to invoke her rights during any potentially incriminating questioning.
