{"id":121753,"date":"2017-10-06T01:53:53","date_gmt":"2017-10-06T05:53:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=121753"},"modified":"2017-10-06T01:53:53","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T05:53:53","slug":"senators-divided-on-dutertes-anti-corruption-commission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/10\/06\/senators-divided-on-dutertes-anti-corruption-commission\/","title":{"rendered":"Senators divided on Duterte\u2019s Anti-Corruption Commission"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Senator<\/a>
Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson called the resolution an “irony” while Senator Sherwin “Win” Gatchalian welcomed it. (Photos: Senate of the Philippines\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA, Philippines\u2014Executive Order (EO) No. 43 signed yesterday by President Rodrigo Duterte drew mixed reactions from the Senate.<\/p>\n

E0 No. 43 will create the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission that will \u201cdirectly assist the President in investigating and\/or hearing administrative cases primarily involving graft and corruption against all presidential appointees\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The Commission will have power to \u201chear, investigate, receive, gather, and evaluate evidence, intelligence reports, and information in administrative cases against all presidential appointees in the Executive Branch of the government and any of its agencies or instrumentalities\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The executive order was signed by the President after he warned the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate corruption in its own rank or he would be forced to create a commission that will probe the anti-graft body. That was the President\u2019s response after the Ombudsman launched an investigation into his alleged hidden wealth.<\/p>\n

Senator Panfilo \u201cPing\u201d Lacson on Thursday tagged E.O 43 as an \u201cirony\u201d that the Ombudsman, whose role is to investigate and prosecute corruption within the government, doesn\u2019t need at present.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe way EO No 43 is worded, the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission will obviously have law enforcement but not prosecutorial powers so inevitably, they will have to refer to the Office of the Ombudsman of the Ombudsman all corruption cases that they will investigate,\u201d Lacson said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not sure if it\u2019s an irony that it is actually what the Ombudsman needs at present\u2014a law enforcement arm that can develop cases, conduct entrapment operations, apply for search warrants and perform other related law enforcement functions,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Senator Sherwin \u201cWin\u201d Gatchalian welcomed EO No. 43 that he thinks is a \u201cgood development\u201d in the fight against corruption.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo agency can claim that corruption is totally nonexistent. Corruption is happening at every level, from lowest level to the highest echelons. I welcome this additional mechanism to combat the culture of corruption in our government system,\u201d Gatchalian was quoted as saying in an Inquirer.net report.<\/p>\n

EO No. 43 also gives the Commission power to conduct lifestyle checks and fact-finding inquiries on public officials and employees and discipline and remove them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA, Philippines\u2014Executive Order (EO) No. 43 signed yesterday by President Rodrigo Duterte drew mixed reactions from the Senate. E0 No. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":121780,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,1145,16,95,483],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-breaking","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","category-politics","mauthors-katherine-padilla","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121753","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121753\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}