{"id":276516,"date":"2020-11-24T20:01:53","date_gmt":"2020-11-25T01:01:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=276516"},"modified":"2020-11-24T20:01:53","modified_gmt":"2020-11-25T01:01:53","slug":"prrd-refuses-to-name-solons-due-to-lack-of-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/11\/24\/prrd-refuses-to-name-solons-due-to-lack-of-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"PRRD refuses to name solons due to \u2018lack of evidence\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
TALK TO THE PEOPLE. President Rodrigo R. Duterte skims through a document as he presides over a meeting with the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) core members before his talk to the people at the Arcadia Active Lifestyle Center in Davao City on Nov. 23, 2020. Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday (Nov. 24, 2020) said Duterte refuses to name congressmen who allegedly received kickbacks from project contractors due to \u201clack of sufficient evidence.\u201d (Presidential photo by Joel Dalumpines via PNA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday said President Rodrigo Duterte refused to name congressmen who allegedly received kickbacks from project contractors due to \u201clack of sufficient evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Critics questioned why Duterte decided not to disclose the names of legislators when he had no problem doing so with personnel from the Customs, Immigration, and Internal Revenue bureaus.<\/p>\n

Duterte also previously bared a \u201cnarco-list\u201d of incumbent and former officials, lawmakers, judges, and uniformed personnel suspected to be involved in the illegal drug trade.<\/p>\n

Instead of naming the lawmakers, Duterte said he will refer the list to the Office of the Ombudsman, saying he has no jurisdiction over members of a co-equal branch of government.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s evidentiary.\u00a0Sinabi naman po iyan ni Presidente na<\/em>\u00a0because this is an issue of evidence,\u00a0mas mabuting mag-imbestiga ay ang<\/em>\u00a0Ombudsman\u00a0dahil ang hurisdiksiyon ng<\/em>\u00a0Ombudsman\u00a0ay lahat ng tao ng gobyerno, hindi lang po ang Ehekutibo<\/em>\u00a0or Legislative or Judicial\u00a0\u2018no<\/em>\u00a0(The President said that because this is an issue of evidence, it\u2019s better for the Ombudsman to investigate because the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to all government officials, not just Executive or Legislative or Judicial),\u201d he said in a Palace press briefing.<\/p>\n

Roque said Duterte could publicly disclose names of personnel in the executive department involved in anomalies because it is within his jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

\u201cKung mapapansin ninyo, minsan ang parusa ay suspension, binabago<\/em>\u00a0right there and then\u00a0ni Presidente<\/em>, dismissal. So\u00a0iyan po kasi ay nasa hurisdiksiyon ng ehekutibo<\/em>\u00a0(If you notice, sometimes the penalty is suspension, the President changes it to dismissal. So that\u2019s within the jurisdiction of the executive),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He said Duterte also had no problems reading out names on the narco-list because it was easier to prove that an official was bribed.<\/p>\n

\u201cSiguro po dahil nakita ni Presidente mismo bilang dating piskal ang ebidensiya laban doon sa mga huwes na iyon. Napakadali po kasi niyan eh, unang-una, kung ang<\/em>\u00a0allegation\u00a0ay tumanggap ang isang huwes para ma<\/em>-acquit\u00a0ang isang<\/em>\u00a0drug lord\u00a0at mayroon pong ebidensiya na ipinakita, well sa tingin po ng Presidente tatayo iyong ebidensiyang iyon \u2018no at madali tumayo<\/em>\u00a0(Perhaps the President, as a former fiscal, saw that evidence against a certain judge. It\u2019s easy because first, if the allegation is the judge received money to acquit a drug lord, there\u2019s evidence to show, and the President thinks the evidence would easily stand),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

However, he said the case is different for lawmakers because he does not have enough evidence to prove that they favored contractors.<\/p>\n

\u201cAng problema po dito sa mga ebidensiya sa<\/em>\u00a0congressmen,\u00a0\u2018di umano mayroong mga proyekto na linuto ang bidding at ibinigay sa<\/em>\u00a0contractor\u00a0na<\/em>\u00a0favored\u00a0na nagbibigay ng porsiyento sa kaniya.<\/em>\u00a0So\u00a0parang ang dami pong mga ebidensiyang kinakailangan na hindi naman po hawak ng Presidente nang<\/em>\u00a0personal\u00a0\u2018no<\/em>. Unlike\u00a0iyong mga ebidensiya na tumanggap ng suhol ang isang huwes \u2018no na talagang madali naman pong ma<\/em>-establish\u00a0iyan<\/em>\u00a0by evidence (The problem with the evidence against congressmen is that there are projects where the bidding was faked and given to the favored contractor who give them kickbacks. So it seems that there is a lot of evidence needed that the President does not personally have. Unlike the evidence that a judge received a bribe, it is really easy to establish that by evidence),\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Roque pointed out that Duterte was also respecting the separate powers of government branches when he referred to the Ombudsman the list of congressmen given to him by the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe stands by what he said that this entails separation of powers.\u00a0Mas mabuti na na<\/em>\u00a0Ombudsman\u00a0ang mag-imbestiga<\/em>\u00a0(It\u2019s better for the Ombudsman to investigate),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

While Duterte did not hesitate to publicly accuse opposition Senator Leila de Lima of accepting from the illegal drug trade when she was still Justice Secretary, Roque insisted that there was “strong” evidence against her.<\/p>\n

\u201cKasi kay<\/em>\u00a0Leila de Lima,\u00a0napakalakas ng ebidensiya na talagang<\/em>\u00a0involved\u00a0siya doon sa kalakalan ng ipinagbabawal na droga<\/em>\u00a0(With Leila de Lima, there was strong evidence that showed she was involved in illegal drug trafficking). So 11 witnesses testified against her,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He said Duterte, a former prosecutor, could easily determine that de Lima was guilty of illegal drug trafficking.<\/p>\n

\u201cPagdating sa mga kongresista na nakiki-<\/em>collude\u00a0daw sa mga<\/em>\u00a0contractors,\u00a0mas<\/em>\u00a0competent\u00a0po talagang mag<\/em>-evaluate\u00a0niyan ang<\/em>\u00a0Ombudsman because\u00a0iyon nga po ang dahilan kung bakit nag<\/em>-establish\u00a0tayo ng<\/em>\u00a0Ombudsman;\u00a0samantalang ang<\/em>\u00a0drug trafficking\u00a0naman po ay<\/em>\u00a0(When it comes to congressmen colluding with contracts, the Ombudsman is really more competent in evaluating it because that\u2019s why we established an Ombudsman; while) that\u2019s really a jurisdiction of the public prosecutors and not the specialized prosecutors under the Office of the Ombudsman,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

De Lima has been in detention since February 2017 due to drug-related charges. She has so far filed two distinct motions for bail, claiming her innocence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Malaca\u00f1ang on Tuesday said President Rodrigo Duterte refused to name congressmen who allegedly received kickbacks from project contractors due …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":276517,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-276516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276516","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\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=276516"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276516\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":276518,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276516\/revisions\/276518"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/276517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=276516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=276516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=276516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}