MANILA – Malacañang believes that it is an issue of evidence why President Rodrigo Duterte refused to drop the names of alleged corrupt lawmakers presented by the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC).
Palace spokesperson Harry Roque said Duterte wants the Office of the Ombudsman to handle the investigation since it is under their jurisdiction.
“I think it’s because it’s evidentiary. Mas mahirap patunayan itong mga accusations na sinabi ng PACC,” Roque said in a virtual presser on Tuesday. “Mas mabuting Ombudsman ang mag-imbestiga.”
“For judges, there should be evidence. Madaling tumayo ang kaso. Pero sa mga congressman na niluto kamo ang bidding at nakakuha ng pursyento, mas maraming kailangang ebidensya,” he added.
“Ang pinamahalaan ng Presidente ay nasa ehekutibo, binibigyan nila ito ng parusa. Samantala, pagdating sa lehislatura, ‘di naman niya ma-suspend ang mga legislators, only the chambers can do that,” he further said.
During his address to the public on Monday evening, President Duterte distanced himself from investigating lawmakers allegedly involved in corruption saying he is not in authority to do so.
“Alam mo, let’s go to political law. I have no business investigating congressmen. They belong to a separate organ of government which is co-equal with the president pati ang Supreme Court,” Duterte said.
“Ngayon kung itapon mo sa akin, I have no other recourse, itapon ko din ‘yan sa Ombudsman,” the Chief Executive added, referring to the list sent by PACC Commissioner Greco Belgica.
The President further said he is not playing safe by refusing to name names, noting that they belong to different branches of government and are considered co-equals.
“I cannot investigate congressmen. It will be an encroachment of the separation of powers,” he said. “If I cannot investigate the congressmen, then I have no authority to be releasing their names that are involved per investigation by the PACC.”
Why De Lima?
When asked why President Duterte did not hold back naming Leila De Lima before, Roque said there was strong evidence against the opposition senator.
“Si Leila De Lima, one of a kind. Napakalakas ng ebidensya laban sa kanya,” Roque said. “Eleven witnesses testified against her. Between that and allegations na namili ng favored contractor, kumuha ng porsyento, mahirap patunayan ‘yun.”
“As lawyers, you can evaluate evidence by yourself. Malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw ang involvement ni De Lima sa drug trafficking,” he added. “The courts – which have the authority to declare if a person is guilty or not of charges – have not yet ruled on De Lima’s case.”/PN
