Lawyer wants Arroyo cited for contempt for snubbing NBN-ZTE case trial

For supposedly evading taking the witness stand at the Sandiganbayan on Wednesday, former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should be cited for contempt of court, a lawyer said. At a news briefing, University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque Jr. said Mrs. Arroyo cannot invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination as her basis for not showing up at the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division's trial on the botched national broadband network (NBN) project deal with China’s Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporatin in 2007. Roque said Mrs. Arroyo is not yet formally accused in the allegedly anomalous deal. Hence, there is no need to invoke Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution with protects a person from being "compelled to be a witness against himself." The lawyer said his motion for reconsideration at the Supreme Court only sought an investigation on Mrs. Arroyo by the Office of the Ombudsman, which previously cleared her because she was immune from suit when she was still president. "Hindi po dahilan ng kaniyang pagsipot ang kaso na nakabinbin sa Supreme Court. Ito po ay kaso questioning the decision of the Ombudsman. Kung manalo po kami sa SC ay para lamang po o-order-an ang Ombudsman na imbestigahan si Arroyo. Hindi po criminal case yan, hindi pwedeng gawing basehan," Roque said. "Dapat arestuhin, ikulong, i-cite in contempt dahil tuluyan niyang winawarak ang sistemang legal," he added. (The case pending at the Supreme Court is not a basis for her absence. This is a case questioning the decision of the Ombudsman. If we win in the SC, the Ombudsman will only be ordered to investigate Arroyo. This is not a criminal case, so it cannot be made a basis. Arroyo should be arrested, jailed, and cited for contempt because she continues to destroy the legal system.) Mrs. Arroyo's camp, for its part, made a brief retort: "Is he [Roque] the judge?" replied Len Bautista -Horn, the former president's spokesperson. In a separate statement, Roque said the right against self-incrimination can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. "It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether," he said. Sandiganbayan graft trial The Sandiganbayan Fifth Divsion had summoned Mrs. Arroyo to testify in the graft trial of former Socioeconomic planning secretary Romulo Neri, who was implicated in the allegedly overpriced $329-million deal between the Philippine government and China's ZTE Corp. The government aborted the deal when it became a public scandal in 2007. But Mrs. Arroyo's lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, filed a motion to quash the subpoena the anti-graft court issued. The veteran lawyer, who also served as the lead defense counsel in the plunder trial of former President Joseph Estrada, said Mrs. Arroyo is protected by her constitutional right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination. In his motion, Mendoza said Mrs. Arroyo cannot also be compelled to take the witness stand because she is named as a respondent in two other complaints concerning the botched broadband deal. The first complaint was filed by Roque before the SC, while the second was filed by Bayan Muna Rep.Teodoro Casiño before the Department of Justice, which has yet to act on the criminal complaint. Neri and former Commission on Elections chair Benjamin Abalos are facing graft charges before the Sandiganbayan in connection with Roque's complaint. However, the Ombudsman cleared Mrs. Arroyo of involvement because she was immune from suit at the time the ruling was made. Roque has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ombudsman's ruling but the high court has yet to decide on the case. — RSJ/LBG, GMANews.TV