1481526089499372

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMITTEE ON ETHICS Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS and REYNALDO V. UMALI, Complainants, - versus SEN. LEILA DE LIMA, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Complainants,

REP.

PANTALEON

D.

ALVAREZ,

REP.

RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS and REP. REYNALDO V. UMALI, unto this Honorable Committee, most respectfully state:

The Parties

1.

Complainants are all of legal age, Filipino, members of

the Philippine Bar, and members of House of Representatives, Philippine

Congress

with

address

at

Batasang

Pambansa,

Constitution Hills, Quezon City where they may be served with Notices, Orders and pleadings. HON. PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ is the incumbent Speaker, HON. RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS is the incumbent Majority Leader and HON. REYNALDO V. UMALI is the Page 1 of 12

incumbent Chairman of the Committee on Justice, of the 17 th Congress.

2.

Respondent SEN. LEILA M. DE LIMA is of legal age,

Filipino, a member of the Philippine bar, and an incumbent member of the Senate of the Philippines. She may be served with Summons and a copy of this Complaint, Notices, Orders and pleadings through her office at Room 502 and 16 (New Wing 5/F), GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., Pasay City.

Statement of Facts

3.

On September 20, 2016, the Committee on Justice

conducted a Congressional Inquiry, in connection with House Resolution (“HR”) No. 105 (“Annex A”) calling for an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the proliferation of drug syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison (“NBP”) during the time of Sen. Leila De Lima, including the involvement and accountability of the authorities mandated to exercise control and supervision over the national penitentiaries, and of other law enforcement agencies.

4.

On various dates, Respondent Senator was invited to

attend the Justice Committee hearings of September 20 and 21 (“Annex B”); and October 5 and 6 (“Annex C”), all in 2016.

Page 2 of 12

Regrettably, Respondent Senator opted to ignore all invitations and failed to attend any of the hearings conducted by the Justice Committee

to

the

point

of

even

insulting

the

House

of

Representatives by calling the House Justice Committee a kangaroo committee/court

and

its

hearing,

a

sham

proceeding.

In

consideration of the inter-chamber courtesies observed by the two Houses of Congress, this Chamber took no action against Respondent Senator.

5.

Corollarily, a Subpoena dated September 28, 2016

(“Annex D”) was also issued against Mr. Ronnie Dayan to attend the October 6, 2016 hearing of the Justice Committee, but to no avail.

Thus, for failure to submit his sworn statement or affidavit, and his failure to attend the same in violation of the Subpoena issued to him the Committee resolved to issue a Show Cause Order (“Annex E”) to Mr. Dayan directing him to explain, within 24 hours from receipt, why he should not be cited in contempt.

6.

Subsequently, on October 10, 2016, the Committee cited

Mr. Dayan in contempt, for his refusal, without legal cause, to obey the summons issued by the Committee, as well as for ignoring the Show Cause Order. Accordingly, an Order of Arrest (“Annex F”) was issued against Mr. Dayan.

Page 3 of 12

7.

However, upon the reopening of the Congressional

Inquiry last November 24, 2016, by reason of the arrest of Mr. Dayan on the strength of the Arrest Warrant issued by the Justice Committee, it was revealed that Respondent Senator advised Mr. Dayan, through his daughter Ms. Hannah Mae Dayan via SMS, to hide and not to appear in the House inquiry. Their exchange of SMS is as follows: “Hannah Mae: Hi Tita. Good pm po. Mi pinapatanong po si pah. Mo baket daw po mi dumating na supwena sa kanya at ano daw po ggawin nia?

De Lima: Pakisabi sa kanya magtago lang muna siya…

Kagagawan yan nila Speaker Alvarez at dikta ni Digong.

Pagpipyestahan lang siya at kaming dalawa kapag magappear siya sa hearing na yan Hannah Mae: Hindi naman po ba siya huhulihin kapag hindi siya pumunta?

De Lima: Di ba nagtatago naman siya?”

For ready reference, the screen capture of SMS exchange as “Annex H” and made an integral part hereof.

8.

Mr. Dayan likewise revealed to the Committee that he

has very limited knowledge of the law; has a very high regard for and trust in Respondent Senator being a lawyer, former Secretary of Justice and Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, Mr. Dayan obeyed the instructions of Respondent Senator.

Page 4 of 12

9.

The foregoing facts clearly show that Respondent Senator

committed unethical conduct as a Senator, as will be explained hereunder:

9.1.

She violated Article 150 of the Revised Penal

Code, which states: “Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.� (emphasis and underscoring supplied) As an incumbent Senator, former Secretary of Justice and a lawyer, advising and inducing Mr. Dayan to hide and not to attend and/or appear in the House Inquiry for which he Page 5 of 12

was duly summoned, is tantamount to restraining or inducing disobedience to a summon issued by Congress, of which she is a sitting member, in violation of Art. 150 of the Revised Penal Code.

9.2.

She violated the Rules of both the House of

Representatives and the Senate, Congress of the Philippines, viz: 9.2.1.

Section 11 of the Rules of Procedure

Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation of the House of Representatives (published on August 26, 2016) provides: “Section 11.Contempt. The committee may punish any person for contempt, by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members present, there being a quorum. The following shall be grounds for citing any person in contempt: a. xxx xxx f. undue interference in the conduct of proceedings during meetings.�

When Respondent Senator advised and/ or induced Mr. Dayan, who was duly summoned by the Committee on Justice, to hide and attending

and

appearing

refrain

before

the

from Committee,

Respondent Senator clearly interfered in a congressional inquiry conducted by the House Committee on Justice.

Page 6 of 12

This is a clear case of contempt of the power and authority vested in the House of Representatives. As a consequence thereof, the House Committee on Justice was constrained to issue a Show Cause Order and Warrant of Arrest of Mr. Dayan; Cause the arrest of Mr. Dayan

by

the

Congressional

PNP;

Inquiry,

and

the

which

reopening

even

of

the

prompted

the

Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) raise and pay a P1.0M reward to the tipster. Indeed, the expense

and

aggravation

that

the

House

of

Representatives (in reopening the Congressional Inquiry) as well as the law enforcement agencies (in effecting the arrest of Mr. Dayan) and the citizenry (in raising/paying the reward money) went through by reason of the inducement or advise of Sen. De Lima, who is a sitting member of Congress, to Dayan to hide and disobey the summons issued by the House Justice Committee.

9.2.2.

Rules of

On the other hand, Section 18 of the

Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of

Legislation of the Philippine Senate provides: “Section 18. Contempt. (a) The Chairman with the concurrence of at least one (1) member of the Committee, may punish or cite in contempt any witness before the Page 7 of 12

Committee who disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer a proper question by the Committee or any of its members, or testifying, testifies falsely or evasively, or who unduly refuses to appear or bring before the Committee certain documents and/or object evidence required by the Committee notwithstanding the issuance of the appropriate subpoena thereof. A majority of all the members of the Committee may, however, reverse or modify the aforesaid order of contempt within seven (7) days.

A contempt of the Committee shall be deemed a contempt of the Senate. Such witness may be ordered by the Committee to be detained in such place as it may designate under the custody of the Seargeant-at-Arms until he/she agrees to produce the required documents, or to be sworn or to testify, or otherwise purge himself/ herself of that contempt...�

As a member of the Senate, a lawyer and a former Secretary of Justice, Respondent Senator is well aware

that

contumacious

acts

are

abhorred

in

congressional investigations and would very well know how a person duly summoned should conduct himself or herself. Surely, Respondent Senator would not want any other person to act in contempt of her own committee or of Congress as a whole. Simply put, it is not only discourteous for her to unduly interfere with the Page 8 of 12

proceedings of a co-equal chamber, but disrespectful to the institution called Congress, of which she is a sitting member, as it puts the co-equal chamber of the Legislative into a collision course.

In

fact,

Section

93,

Rule

XXXIV

on

Unparliamentary Acts and Language of the Rules of Senate (published in October 2016) provides: “Acts and language which offend a Senator or any public institution shall be deemed unparliamentary.”

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, when Respondent Senator characterized the Congressional inquiry conducted by the House Committee on Justice as a sham proceeding, and even called the same Committee a kangaroo court, such hostile acts and language towards a co-equal chamber is considered an unparliamentary act and is a clear violation of conduct of a Member of the Senate.

Respondent

Senator’s

complete

disregard

of

the

proceedings of a co-equal chamber endangers the mutual respect accorded by Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to each other. Her inducement to disregard the legal processes of a co-equal branch manifests her disrespect to the House of Representatives, Page 9 of 12

as if it was an inferior institution that could be completely disregarded.

9.3.

She violated her oath as a public official.

Article XI Section 1 of the Constitution provides: “Public office is a public trust.

Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

As a senator, she also `violated her oath of office,

thus: “I will faithfully discharge to the best of my ability, the duties of my present position and of all others that I may hereafter hold under the Republic of the Philippines; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

Respondent Senator has been in public office for around a decade now, dating back from her appointment as the Commissioner on Human Rights in 2007 and Secretary of Justice in 2010. The duties and responsibilities of a public official are, therefore, not new to the Respondent Senator. She Page 10 of 12

is well aware that she must faithfully discharge her duties to the best of her ability and to obey laws, legal orders and decrees of duly constituted authorities of the Republic, and, most importantly, be accountable to the people at all times.

10.

Premises considered, for violating the law (Article 150 of

the Revised Penal Code); the Rules of Congress, of which she is a sitting member; her Oath of Office as a Senator of the Republic; and her disrespect for a co-equal chamber which she called a kangaroo court, the corresponding disciplinary measures must be imposed to penalize Senator De Lima for her unethical acts, conduct and behavior.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Committee that after due hearing, Respondent SEN. LEILA M. DE LIMA be disciplined in accordance with the Rules of the Senate of the Philippines.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez Page 11 of 12

Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas

Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali

Republic of the Philippines) Makati City, Metro Manila ) S.S. VERIFICATION WE, PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS and REYNALDO V. UMALI, under oath, state that: 1. We are the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case; 2. We caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Complaint; 3. We have read the foregoing pleading and attest to the truth in the allegations therein of my own personal knowledge and on the basis of the records; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set my hand this ___ day of ______ 2016 in Makati City, Metro Manila.

Rep. Pantaleon D. Alvarez

Rep. Rodolfo C. Fariñas

Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _____2016 in Makati City, Metro Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. ________issued on _________ at ___________.

Doc. No. ___; Page No. ___; Book No. ___; Series of 2016

Page 12 of 12