Looking into the Aguirre “Takeover”

Screenshot from ANC’s live coverage of the House probe on September 20, 2016.

THE MEAN season for Senator Leila de Lima seems far from over as the House of Representatives continue to hound  the senator by presenting high-profile prisoners, among others, as witnesses to prove her alleged involvement in the illegal drug trade at the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) maximum security jail.

The House probe on the illegal drug trade at the NBP opened on Sept. 20 and 21 with no less than Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II directly questioning the witnesses in the first day of the probe, leaving members of the House Committee on Justice in the sidelines.

This development was picked up by the media but without much detail on Aguirre’s involvement and whether his virtual takeover of the House hearings was allowed under House rules. It was a matter the media should have addressed, but didn’t.

CMFR monitored reports from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star and news programs 24 Oras (GMA-7), Aksyon (TV5) and TV Patrol (ABS-CBN 2), as well as selected news websites from Sept. 20 to 25, 2016.

Breach of Rules?

The media reported on Aguirre’s “takeover” of the inquiry, acting not as a resource person but as interrogator of witnesses. Most reports failed to check its propriety and to note the interference of an executive in the conduct of the legislature. Reports gave accounts of the testimonies given and any critique was limited to quotes from congressmen, either in support of the extent of Aguirre’s participation or in criticism of the committee’s decision.

For instance, in a statement, majority floor leader Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas defended the decision, saying that Aguirre was allowed to take the lead because he is the Secretary of Justice whose office investigated the witnesses. He also clarified that Aguirre had been invited as a resource person of the committee and not as a counsel of the witnesses. A resource person is usually limited to answering questions of the committee.

House Committee on Justice chairperson Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali also said there was nothing wrong with what Aguirre was doing under the House rules (“Rep. Umali, nilinaw na hindi bawal ang pagtatanong ni Sec. Aguirre sa mga testigo,” Aksyon, Sept. 21, 2016). House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez also defended the decision to let Aguirre directly question the witnesses in a DZMM interview, clarifying that it is merely “procedural” and that it was done so that the presentation would be “orderly” (“Speaker Alvarez, nilinaw na pinayagang magtanong si Sec. Aguirre para maayos ang presentation ng drug trade sa Bilibid,” TV Patrol, Sept. 21, 2016)

But giving Aguirre the reins of the inquiry drew flak from some lawmakers, such as Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman who called the decision a “violation of rules,” as only members of the committee can direct questions to witnesses. Lagman went so far as to call the House inquiry a part of the “partisan adventurism” being conducted to implicate de Lima. (“Solons slam Aguirre for ‘taking over’ House drug probe,” GMA News Online, Sept. 20, 2016)

There were some reports which referred to Section 137 of the Rules of the House of Representatives which states that: “resource persons and/or technical assistants may be invited to attend the proceedings, and upon permission of the Chairperson, may directly answer questions and inquiries propounded by Members.”

That Aguirre, who was merely invited as a resource person, took the lead in the first House drug probe should have been scrutinized. If the House rules were to be strictly followed, Umali instead should have taken the lead, while Aguirre, as a resource person, should have only been available for questioning by the House committee regarding the testimonies of the witnesses.

Media should have noted this more prominently in the coverage of the hearing in the House.