The suggestion of Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, with the acquiescence of Chairman Reynaldo Umali and majority members of the Committee on Justice, which barred me from attending its so-called “executive session” this morning is patently baseless for the following reasons:
-
The “executive session” was held in violation of the Rules of the House because there was no question of national security or national interest involved in the said session which pertains to the request of witnesses from the Supreme Court for the deferment of their attendance pending clearance from the Court en banc and other procedural matters.
-
The rule cited by Fariñas is Sec. 7 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, not impeachment proceedings, which specifically provides:
“If the committee or sub-committee deems that the examination of a witness in a public hearing may endanger national security, it shall conduct the examination in an executive session, and shall make a determination of the necessity or propriety of conducting further examinations of such witness in a public hearing.
“Attendance in executive sessions shall be limited to Members of the committee, the committee secretariat staff and such other persons whose presence are required or allowed by the Chairperson.” (Emphasis supplied).
-
The so-called “executive session” of the Committee on Justice was a mere extension of the meetings/hearings of the Committee wherein pursuant to the ruling of the Committee, non-members can be present and listen.
-
Parliamentary practice, which is part of the Rules of the House, dictates that non-members can attend and participate in executive sessions without the right to vote (2016 Parliamentary Practices in the House of Representatives Procedure and Precedents, page 109, citing TSN, 6 Aug. 1996).
I cannot understand why Fariñas and Umali are so wary even of my mere presence in the Committee’s sessions and deliberations.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN