Ex-presidential spox questions House panel arrest warrant before SC

By Benjamin Pulta, Philippine News Agency

Roque, however, claimed that he has provided all the information that is “relevant and pertinent to the subject of the congressional inquiry.” (File Photo: House of Representatives of the Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA – Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque on Monday filed a petition before the Supreme Court, questioning the arrest order issued by the House of Representatives’ quad committee (Quadcom) against him.

“The actions of the respondents (referring to the House of Representatives Quad Committee) were committed with grave abuse of discretion in exercising their legislative powers in an abusive manner and in usurping the investigative powers reserved for the Executive Branch and the adjudicative powers reserved for the Judicial Branch of government,” read the petition filed by Roque’s daughter, Hacintha, on his behalf.

The petition also requested the tribunal for a Temporary Protection Order, prohibiting the Quadcom from enforcing the arrest warrant, and issue a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition to prevent Roque from being required to produce any more documents or attend future hearings.

The Quadcom has cited Roque in contempt for refusing to submit subpoenaed documents related to his alleged involvement with illegal Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs).

The subpoenaed documents include his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth and records connected to his family firm, Biancham Holdings, as well as a land transaction in Parañaque City.

Roque, however, claimed that he has provided all the information that is “relevant and pertinent to the subject of the congressional inquiry.”

He said he answered all the questions of the committees forthrightly without invoking any excuse, never evaded any question, and provided every piece of information required of him by the House committees.

“The Quad Committee has wielded its contempt power capriciously and whimsically, meting out punishment simply because some of its members did not like the answers of the resource persons or because the resource persons invoked their constitutional rights,” the petition said.