PUMALAG ang kampo ni Atty Zuleika Lopez, chief of staff ng Office of the Vice President, nang palawigin ng limang araw ang “five day detention” na ipinataw sa kanya ng House Committee on Good government and public accountability.
Ang naghain ng ‘motion’ ay si Partylist Rep. France Castro na nagsabi “in view of what happened during the last two days or so, I would like to consider moving for a reconsideration of our resolution in so far as its limited the period of detention to only five days. I move Mr. Chair that the period of detention of Atty. Lopez be 10 days. Instead of five days” (Inquirer.net) na walang tumutol na kahit isang congressman kaya inaprubahan ni committee chairman Manila 3rd Dist. Rep. Joel Chua.
Tama bang ma-extend and detention?
Suriin natin ang motion. Sabi ni Castro “I would like to consider moving for a consideration of our resolution in so far as ITS LIMITED THE PERIOD OF DETENTION TO ONLY FIVE DAYS”. Ibig sabihin si Castro ang mismong nagpa-reconsider na resolution nila na limang araw lang ang “ipinataw na dapat daw sampu.”
Pero kailan ba pinataw ‘yun unang limang araw? November 20, 2024 kaya dapat ay limang araw ang kanyang pagkakulong na hanggang November 25, 2024. Ang “extension” ay ipinataw noong November 25, 2024 kaya kung tama ang kwenta, November 30, 2024 ay tapos na ang period of detention.
Tanong pwede pa bang i-extend ulit ang detention? O, kaya naman ay magpataw ng bagong period of detention? Sa madaling salita, pwede bang unlimited ang detention sa contempt ng Kongreso?
Sabi ng Korte Suprema sa Arvin Balag case, “the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.
Kaya mukhang tama ang committee ni Chua sa pagbibigay ng extension of detention dahil “HINDI PA TAPOS ANG LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY” nila.
Pero paano kung hindi na matapos-tapos ang legislative inquiry nila? Iyan nga ang concern mismo ng Korte Suprema “While there is a presumption of regularity that the Senate will not gravely abuse its power of contempt, there is still a lingering and unavoidable possibility of INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT OF WITNESSES AS LONG AS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PERIOD OF DETENTION.
Kaya nga nakadepende nga lang ba sa ating mga kagalang-galang na mambabatas ang “kalayaan” ng isang resource person na mako-contempt at mapakukulong.
Abangan natin kung may maghahain sa Korte Suprema ng petition ang panig ni Lopez tungkol dito.
