TALK TO THE PEOPLE. President Rodrigo R. Duterte skims through a document as he presides over a meeting with the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) core members before his talk to the people at the Arcadia Active Lifestyle Center in Davao City on Nov. 23, 2020. Malacañang on Tuesday (Nov. 24, 2020) said Duterte refuses to name congressmen who allegedly received kickbacks from project contractors due to “lack of sufficient evidence.” (Presidential photo by Joel Dalumpines)
MANILA – Malacañang on Tuesday said President Rodrigo Duterte refused to name congressmen who allegedly received kickbacks from project contractors due to “lack of sufficient evidence.”
Critics questioned why Duterte decided not to disclose the names of legislators when he had no problem doing so with personnel from the Customs, Immigration, and Internal Revenue bureaus.
Duterte also previously bared a “narco-list” of incumbent and former officials, lawmakers, judges, and uniformed personnel suspected to be involved in the illegal drug trade.
Instead of naming the lawmakers, Duterte said he will refer the list to the Office of the Ombudsman, saying he has no jurisdiction over members of a co-equal branch of government.
“I think it’s evidentiary. Sinabi naman po iyan ni Presidente na because this is an issue of evidence, mas mabuting mag-imbestiga ay ang Ombudsman dahil ang hurisdiksiyon ng Ombudsman ay lahat ng tao ng gobyerno, hindi lang po ang Ehekutibo or Legislative or Judicial ‘no (The President said that because this is an issue of evidence, it’s better for the Ombudsman to investigate because the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to all government officials, not just Executive or Legislative or Judicial),” he said in a Palace press briefing.
Roque said Duterte could publicly disclose names of personnel in the executive department involved in anomalies because it is within his jurisdiction.
“Kung mapapansin ninyo, minsan ang parusa ay suspension, binabago right there and then ni Presidente, dismissal. So iyan po kasi ay nasa hurisdiksiyon ng ehekutibo (If you notice, sometimes the penalty is suspension, the President changes it to dismissal. So that’s within the jurisdiction of the executive),” he said.
He said Duterte also had no problems reading out names on the narco-list because it was easier to prove that an official was bribed.
“Siguro po dahil nakita ni Presidente mismo bilang dating piskal ang ebidensiya laban doon sa mga huwes na iyon. Napakadali po kasi niyan eh, unang-una, kung ang allegation ay tumanggap ang isang huwes para ma-acquit ang isang drug lord at mayroon pong ebidensiya na ipinakita, well sa tingin po ng Presidente tatayo iyong ebidensiyang iyon ‘no at madali tumayo (Perhaps the President, as a former fiscal, saw that evidence against a certain judge. It’s easy because first, if the allegation is the judge received money to acquit a drug lord, there’s evidence to show, and the President thinks the evidence would easily stand),” he said.
However, he said the case is different for lawmakers because he does not have enough evidence to prove that they favored contractors.
“Ang problema po dito sa mga ebidensiya sa congressmen, ‘di umano mayroong mga proyekto na linuto ang bidding at ibinigay sa contractor na favored na nagbibigay ng porsiyento sa kaniya. So parang ang dami pong mga ebidensiyang kinakailangan na hindi naman po hawak ng Presidente nang personal ‘no. Unlike iyong mga ebidensiya na tumanggap ng suhol ang isang huwes ‘no na talagang madali naman pong ma-establish iyan by evidence (The problem with the evidence against congressmen is that there are projects where the bidding was faked and given to the favored contractor who give them kickbacks. So it seems that there is a lot of evidence needed that the President does not personally have. Unlike the evidence that a judge received a bribe, it is really easy to establish that by evidence),” he added.
Roque pointed out that Duterte was also respecting the separate powers of government branches when he referred to the Ombudsman the list of congressmen given to him by the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission.
“He stands by what he said that this entails separation of powers. Mas mabuti na na Ombudsman ang mag-imbestiga (It’s better for the Ombudsman to investigate),” he said.
While Duterte did not hesitate to publicly accuse opposition Senator Leila de Lima of accepting money from the illegal drug trade when she was still Justice Secretary, Roque insisted that there was "strong" evidence against her.
“Kasi kay Leila de Lima, napakalakas ng ebidensiya na talagang involved siya doon sa kalakalan ng ipinagbabawal na droga (With Leila de Lima, there was strong evidence that showed she was involved in illegal drug trafficking). So 11 witnesses testified against her,” he said.
He said Duterte, a former prosecutor, could easily determine that de Lima was guilty of illegal drug trafficking.
“Pagdating sa mga kongresista na nakiki-collude daw sa mga contractors, mas competent po talagang mag-evaluate niyan ang Ombudsman because iyon nga po ang dahilan kung bakit nag-establish tayo ng Ombudsman; samantalang ang drug trafficking naman po ay (When it comes to congressmen colluding with contracts, the Ombudsman is really more competent in evaluating it because that’s why we established an Ombudsman; while) that’s really a jurisdiction of the public prosecutors and not the specialized prosecutors under the Office of the Ombudsman,” he said.
De Lima has been in detention since February 2017 due to drug-related charges. She has so far filed two distinct motions for bail, claiming her innocence. (PNA)
