By Ade S. Fajardo
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other civic organizations have issued public statements declaring Senator Win Gatchalian’s ascension as Senate president pro tempore, and thus acting Senate president, as valid and legal under the Constitution and the rules of the Senate.
There is a real chance, however, that this issue will become moot and academic as soon as the new Senate leadership gets a 13th vote from among those sitting in the trenches cleverly waiting for the dust to settle.
In which case, there would be no actual case or controversy that the Supreme Court may adjudicate in order to finally settle lingering questions on attendance and quorum.
***
The judiciary may not be minded to dip its fingers into the internal wranglings in a co-equal body, especially when there is no compelling need to do so.
Nonetheless, some cases may eventually necessitate a ruling on this issue.
One example is the legality of the blue ribbon committee hearing held last week, whereby certain ex-soldiers affirmed “under oath” that they had delivered suitcases full of cash to certain public officials upon the behest of resigned Congressman Zaldy Co.
***
Senator Rodante Marcoleta presided over the hearing unmindful of the earlier Senate session that installed Senator Erwin Tulfo as the new chairperson of the blue ribbon committee.
The committee support staff was not in attendance.
No less than Senator Alan Peter Cayetano himself had to administer the oath to Co’s erstwhile bodyguards.
The Senate’s other half — the House of Representatives — has publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of the Gatchalian group.
The Palace has also accepted the new Senate leadership.
***
Some of the personalities named in the bodyguards’ joint affidavit, which the latter affirmed during the Marcoleta hearing, have threatened to sue for libel, perjury, etc.
Senators Erwin Tulfo and Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said they are filing libel complaints against the 18 former Marines and their lawyer who linked them to kickbacks from flood control projects.
May the statements made during the Marcoleta hearing be the basis for these criminal complaints?
***
Palawan Representative Jose Alvarez also quickly questioned his sudden inclusion in the list of lawmakers who allegedly received money from Co.
He said it might be because of his refusal to endorse an impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
Statements made during sessions and hearings of Congress are generally privileged: Meaning that they may not be the source material for a criminal prosecution because they are protected.
The basic question is: Does the Marcoleta hearing qualify as a committee hearing within the language and meaning of the law?
***
Palace spokesperson Claire Castro even went as far as saying that Cayetano, et al., may be liable for usurpation of official functions.
This is where the prosecution and eventually the judiciary might have to address once again the primordial question of whether the Gatchalian group has the only legitimate roster of officers as to be able to validly hold a public hearing for the blue ribbon committee./WDJ