Press Release
June 18, 2009

MINORITY SENATORS REBUT MAJORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ON VILLAR CASE

        Minority senators have rebutted the assertion of their majority counterparts that they did not commit abuse of discretion and unconstitutional acts when they decided to constitute a committee of the whole to investigate the ethics complaint against Sen. Manuel Villar.

        They argued that the majority bloc's lame excuse for constituting the Senate as a committee of the whole just to hear the charges against Villar shows an apparent bias against him.

        "By adopting one rule for Sen. Villar and another for the rest of the senators facing complaints before the ethics committee, did this not violate his constitutional right to equal protection and due process?" the minority senators said.

        In a 23-page response sent to the Supreme Court, Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Senators Villar, Joker Arroyo, Francis Pangilinan, Pia Cayetano and Alan Peter Cayetano disputed the arguments presented by the majority to dismiss their petition questioning the constitutionality of the Senate probe.

        They said the majority's lack of impartiality and bias against the Villar were clearly shown by not heeding the minority's motion for Senators Panfilo Lacson and Jamby Madrigal to inhibit themselves from the investigation considering that Lacson was the first to accuse Villar of conflict of interest while Madrigal was the one who filed the complaint against the respondent.

        "By allowing Senators Lacson and Madrigal to participate in the proceedings of the committee of the whole, including the approval on May 21, 2009 on the existence of substantial and credible evidence on the complaints to justify the holding of an adjudicatory hearing against Sen. Villar, thus enabling both to act as accusers and judges of the complaint against Villar, did the respondents (majority senators) not violate the due process of the Constitution," the Pimentel-Villar group said.

        The minority senators also raised the following arguments in their reply to the majority's counter-petition before the high tribunal:

        1. Adjudicatory hearings by the Senate acting as a committee of the whole unduly prejudices Villar's right to due process.

        There will not be any real opportunity for Sen. Villar to get an honest-to-goodness review or to genuinely question the ruling or the recommendations-findings of the committee of the whole before the Senate plenary. The right to do so is available only to other senators under the present Senate rules if they are sanctioned for complaints tackled by the ethics committee.

        Sen. Villar will be subjected to a more prolonged trial unlike any other senator facing complaint before the ethics committee. Such discriminatory treatment puts him at a gross disadvantage in the presentation of his defense and violates his right to due process and fair trial.

        2. The fact that the Constitution vests upon the Senate and House of Representatives to come up with their own rules of proceedings and to discipline their members does not give them a carte blanche to run amok in crucifying a colleague at the altar of political exigency.

        Members of the majority in the committee of the whole claim there are no political motives in their actions. And yet, they refuse to proceed with fairness in handling the complaint against Sen. Villar. They refuse to open for discussion the motion to require certain members, particularly the presidentiables, to inhibit themselves from the proceedings due to perceived bias against Villar who is their rival in the presidential race.

        3. The committee of the whole's use of quorum of eight member in conducting hearings violates Article VI, section 16 of the Constitution.

        From the mere assertion of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, chairman of the committee of the whole the quorum could be eight or six or any number more than two depending on the number of senators actually present in the country even as the rules of the ethics committee provide the presence of at least two senators in hearing already constitutes a quorum to do business. How in heaven's name can a democratic, collegial and deliberative body such as the Senate allow one man to determine what the rule on quorum should be?

        4. The majority maintained that there was no need to publish the rules of the ethics committee adopted to govern the hearing on the complaint against Villar, as he is a member of the Senate and is well-informed of the rules for the hearings.

        Due to the non-publication of the rules, the witnesses who would be summoned to the hearings would be at a loss as to what provisions would apply to them when they appear and testify at the hearings.

        By ignoring the rights of numerous listed witnesses to be informed of the rules adopted to govern the hearings, did the respondent majority senators not violate the due process clause of the Constitution when they refused to publish the rules?

News Latest News Feed