Editorial
Villar’s double standard
TWO former government employees returned home this month to face charges of wrongdoing. Why did the Senate president order the immediate arrest of one but stall action on the other?
When former Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante returned Tuesday night to face charges he had diverted P728 million in public funds in 2004, Mr. Villar immediately issued a warrant for his arrest. His reason: Mr. Bolante had exhibited contempt when he left for the United States in 2005, presumably to avoid testifying before the Senate on what has now come to be known as the fertilizer fund scam.
Mr. Villar’s hasty action is puzzling because the Senate investigation on the case was completed during the 13th Congress and a final committee report has already been issued. Furthermore, there are no ongoing investigations on the fertilizer scam in the chamber, and Mr. Villar did not bother to consult with the committee on agriculture, headed by Senator Edgardo Angara, before issuing the warrant.
On the other hand, Mr. Villar applied the brakes on Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who wanted former police Gen. Eliseo de la Paz arrested for contempt, when he stayed away from hearings over his detention by Russian authorities for carrying 105,000 undeclared euros.
Villar said it was not enough that a majority of those who attended the committee hearing found De la Paz in contempt; the majority of the 17-member committee must do so first, before he issues a warrant.
In summary, Mr. Villar is in a rush to arrest a witness in a four-year-old case where no investigations are ongoing, but is dragging his heels on a fresh case in which hearings are ongoing. He acts unilaterally on the first instance, but demands a vote on the second.
We understand that Mr. Villar—who plans to run for president in 2010—would be eager to reopen investigations that would embarrass the current administration, and may even add fuel to the sputtering impeachment complaint against President Arroyo. But shouldn’t he at least pay some heed to the notion of equality under the law?
|
|
|
|
|
|