‘The Bureau of Corrections recognizes the power of a legislative body to commit a witness for contempt and if we are given orders to safekeep a person held under custody for contempt by a competent authority, we have no recourse but to follow,’ BuCor chief Gregorio Catapang Jr. says
After being detained within the premises of the House of Representatives for 30 days, Katherine Cassandra Ong was transferred to the Correctional Institute for Women (CIW) in Mandaluyong City where she will be held under custody for another 30 days.
Ong, who was at the center of the House probe into Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs), was detained after she was cited in contempt by the quad committee for snubbing the prior legislative hearings.
Originally, she was held within the House premises, which was more conducive and comfortable. However, lawmakers cited her in contempt for the second time for supposedly lying on September 19 and moved to transfer her to the CIW, the prison for women convicted of crimes.
On Thursday, Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Gregorio Catapang Jr. confirmed that Ong had already been transferred to the CIW.
The power of contempt
No less than the 1987 Constitution empowers legislative branches — the Senate and the House — to conduct probes in aid of legislation. These inquiries have to be based on legislative intent, or hinged on a law or a measure that the legislative wants to strengthen or make more efficient.
In conducting probes, the legislative chambers may cite persons in contempt and detain them if they snub hearings or are uncooperative during inquiries, just like what happened to Ong. A person held in contempt may be held under custody “until he/she agrees to produce the required documents, or to be sworn or to testify, or otherwise purge himself/herself of that contempt.”
“This coercive process is essential to the legislature’s discharge of its functions. This power permits either House or the Legislature to perform its duties without impediment as it enables the Senate or the House of Representatives to legislate wisely or effectively because they have the power to compel the availability of information necessary in shaping legislation,” the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated in its ruling on the petition filed by Linconn Ong with the High Court against the Senate.
Ong is involved in the Pharmally mess and was detained by the Senate for a time as it probed into the scandal.
“An arrest is necessary to carry out the coercive process of compelling attendance, testimony, and production of documents relevant and material in a legislative inquiry,” the SC added.
Lawmakers usually set a period for detention and may lift their order once they find the resource person cooperative. This is what happened to Ronelyn Baterna, the corporate secretary of Lucky South 99, the POGO in Porac, Pampanga, where Ong has also been implicated.
Baterna was initially cited in contempt and detained by the House for inconsistent responses during the probe, but was later freed after she became more cooperative in the POGO inquiry.
Detention under BuCor
The BuCor oversees prisons which hold in custody persons convicted of crimes. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology manages jails that cater to persons deprived of liberty awaiting judgment or convicted of lesser offenses.
If this is the case, why has Ong been transferred to the CIW, which is under the BuCor?
Catapang said their facilities can cater to people ordered detained by Congress. He said the BuCor has a manual that allows them to hold people cited in contempt by the legislative branch.
Rappler has already reached out to BuCor to inquire about the manual, but the bureau has yet to provide a definite answer to the query.
“But [she] cannot be put together with the convicted people. Kasi naman, hindi pa naman siya rin convicted (Because she’s not yet convicted). So as a commitment order ng (of) Congress, we are just following the orders of Congress…. But we cannot allow [her] to mingle with those convicted people already. It might endanger her security and safety,” Catapang told reporters on Thursday, September 26.
The BuCor chief said Ong will be detained in a facility which has its own comfort room. She can also be visited by her lawyers and was also allowed to have her cellular phone inside the facility.
Catapang clarified that because Ong is not a PDL, she is entitled to still use her gadget.
“The Bureau of Corrections recognizes the power of a legislative body to commit a witness for contempt and if we are given orders to safe keep a person held under custody for contempt by a competent authority, we have no recourse but to follow,” Catapang added.
Unlike dismissed Bamban, Tarlac mayor Alice Guo, who is detained in Pasig City Jail for alleged trafficking, there’s no warrant of arrest yet against Ong. Complaints for alleged money laundering and trafficking against Ong are still pending with the Department of Justice and have yet to reach the courts.
Once the prosecutors finish the preliminary investigation and find sufficient evidence to indict Ong, they will then file cases with the courts. Only then will the judge determine if warrants should be issued or not.
Contempt’s limitation
If PDLs have rights despite their detention or incarceration, more so people who are still being probed. Time and again, the SC has already said in several rulings that Congress’ contempt is limited.
In the cases of Pharmally and the hazing death of University of Santo Tomas law student Atio Castillo, the SC said the Senate can detain a person held in contempt for only as long as the inquiry is ongoing.
“Legislative inquiries do not share the same goals as the criminal trial process and cannot be punitive in the sense that they cannot result in legally binding deprivation of a person’s life, liberty or property,” the SC said in its decision on the Pharmally decision. “Thus, punishment for legislative contempt, albeit sui generis in character, must similarly observe the minimum requirements of due process.”
“Although an inherent power of legislative contempt exists and is broad in scope, it is subject to limitations that safeguard constitutionally guaranteed freedoms,” Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said in his concurring opinion in the Pharmally decision. – Rappler.com
