After Duterte refuses to take oath, what do House and Senate rules say about swearing in resource persons?
Vice President Sara Duterte has stirred controversy anew after she refused to take an oath to tell the truth in a legislative hearing amid supposed nuances between being a "witness" and a "resource person."
Duterte made a surprise appearance during the Sept. 18 hearing on the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. The committee sought to discuss Manila 2nd District Rep. Rolando Valeriano's privilege speech against issues involving the Office of the Vice President (OVP)'s budget.
Before the hearing started, resource persons from the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Budget and Management were asked to take an oath. They raised their right hands and answered the question, “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?"
A standard procedure, an oath is taken by resource persons during legislative inquiries of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
But Duterte questioned the act of oath-taking.
“Witnesses lang po ang ino-oath. Sabi ninyo sa amin ngayon, resource persons kami," she told the committee chairman, Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua.
Chua, however, told Duterte that everyone is considered a resource person and a witness.
Pampanga 2nd District Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Duterte's ally, then defended her, noting that a resource person is different from a witness based on a Supreme Court ruling and a Senate precedent.
"Somebody who appears to be the accused has a different tier of protection from a witness, and in fact, can refuse to take the witness stand," Arroyo said, adding that based on the Constitution, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
She also alluded to Valeriano's privilege speech, which prompted the hearing, as it mentioned acts of “misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance” that Duterte had allegedly committed.
Lawmakers explained that resource person and witness are technical terms with similar meanings. Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Flores also told Arroyo that nobody was "technically accused of any wrongdoing" just yet, but the latter was quick to retort with, "Look at the privilege speech!"
What lawyers say about oath-taking
Are there ramifications that come with refusing to say a simple "I do" or "Yes" during oath-taking?
Atty. Hyacinth Merioles of Merioles Law Office told PhilSTAR L!fe that the essence of taking an oath is to "basically serve as a vouch for integrity, for telling the truth, for accountability."
Technicalities aside, Merioles said a resource person may be a witness, plain and simple.
"No big deal. Unless it is made a big deal," she said.
Atty. Jefferson Legado, a solo practitioner, meanwhile noted that a "resource person" is not defined nor mentioned in the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate as they both use "witness."
"However, the Supreme Court, in many of its decisions, used it interchangeably," Legado said, adding that its purpose is just one, i.e., to provide true information to the legislative bodies in aid of legislation.
"Thus, to ensure that the witness or resource person will give only true and accurate information, an oath or affirmation must first be taken," he said.
Legado said the refusal to take an oath or affirmation is a contemptible act for both chambers.
When either chamber cites individuals in contempt, they may be ordered to be detained in a designated place until they agree to produce the required documents or to testify.
Lying under oath also constitutes perjury, a separate criminal offense. It's commonly associated with court hearings.
The Revised Penal Code's Article 183 punishes a person who commits perjury.
In 2021, former president Rodrigo Duterte, Sara's father, signed Republic Act No. 11594 which increased penalties for perjury to six years and one day to 12 years (prision mayor). They must also pay a fine not exceeding P1 million and are banned from running for public office.
"There's not so much difference as the Senate, the House, and the courts of law may treat lying under oath a contemptible act or a separate crime in itself," Legado said.
As for Merioles, Duterte's refusal to take an oath may be a strategy.
"By refusing to take an oath, she does not want to hold herself accountable to her own statements during the proceeding," Merioles said. "If she lies, she can argue that her statements were not made under oath and, therefore, she cannot be held criminally liable for perjury."
The privilege speech
On Sept. 18, Valeriano questioned whether constituents benefited from the billions of pesos the OVP had.
Valeriano asked supposed whistleblowers to come forward about the OVP's alleged misuse of funds in its socioeconomic programs.
He also took a swipe at Duterte for her refusal to answer questions regarding her office's expenses, particularly the confidential funds worth P775 million for the OVP and the Department of Education, her former agency, from 2022 to 2023, during her budget proposal's first hearing.
She was seeking a P2.037-billion budget for 2025, which was cut to P733 million. Her office has a P1.885-billion budget for 2024.
The Manila 2nd District Rep. put questions on the lack of transparency in the OVP's expenditure on socioeconomic programs, citing the absence of supporting documents.
"We have not seen any paper trail or electronic trail that would serve as evidence of beneficiaries and partnership agreements,” he said. “She expected us to take at face value the figures in her presentation when there is much reason for us here in Congress to doubt the veracity of the figures in the presentation."
“Her claim of leaving it to the House to do what it thinks is right is just a palusot, a smokescreen, a cover,” he added.
Valeriano also implied that Duterte is loyal to the one "who blocks the boats of Filipino fishermen" or the one "who promotes POGOs."
'No misuse of funds'
Reading from her phone, Duterte said all OVP officials authorized her to represent them “simply because we have not done anything wrong."
"There is no misuse of funds," she said, adding she'd "gladly" respond to the findings of COA and cases filed in court.
Before walking out, Duterte accused the hearings of being a part of a "well-funded and coordinated political attack."
She claimed that Valeriano's privilege speech was "simply meant to say, 'Don't vote for Sara'" in 2028. There are speculations that she's running for the presidency in the next general elections.
She also reiterated that she's leaving the OVP's 2025 budget to "the pleasure" of House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
'Unbowed'
Duterte accused the House good government and public accountability committee of trying to impeach her. Lawmakers previously denied this.
“You may try to destroy me. You can skin me alive, burn me, and throw my ashes to the wind. But let it be known: You will find me unbowed," she said. "I will continue to serve the Filipino people, no matter the personal cost or political intrigue."
“I will not allow myself to be subjected to an inquiry based on an empty privilege speech just so you can attack me and do indirectly what you failed to do directly during the budget hearings," she added before asking to be excused from the hearing.
Chua granted Duterte's request, noting she didn't take her oath anyway and that the OVP has a lot of work to do.
He said they allowed Duterte to make a statement "out of respect to the office and position she represents."
With Duterte leaving early, lawmakers didn't have the chance to ask her questions.
Not a precedent
Chua pointed out that Duterte's refusal to take an oath is not a precedent for other committee hearings.
"All witnesses and resource persons are required to take the oath," he said. "In fact, this is a ground for a witness to be cited in contempt.”
"But out of respect, this was overlooked and we will let it slide," he added.
Assistant Majority Leader Jefferson Khonghun, meanwhile, said testifying under oath is a "basic act of accountability," and refusal to do so “sends a signal that there is something to avoid."
“Taking the oath is not just a legal formality. It is a commitment to honesty. Any refusal to do so undermines trust in public statements," Khonghun said.
Antipolo Rep. Reynaldo Acop said Duterte's refusal to take oath gives the impression that she "may not want the full truth to come out."
Acop said Filipinos "deserve honesty and openness from their leaders especially where their actions are being scrutinized," and that “transparency should never be optional for public officials.”
1Rider party-list Rep. Rodge Gutierrez echoed this, saying "We are talking about hundreds of millions in public funds, and the VP must be transparent," he said, referring to COA's findings on the OVP's 2023 confidential funds where P375 million were allegedly misused.
Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr., for his part, said the refusal to take an oath during a legislative hearing “goes against the power of Congress to conduct legislative inquiries.”
Duterte is the only official of her stature to refuse to take an oath during legislative inquiries.
Former presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III were previously invited as resource persons in legislative inquiries and took their oaths as usual.
Ramos took an oath during a probe into the issue surrounding independent power producers in 2006, while Aquino took an oath during the Dengvaxia case hearing in 2017. (with reports Delon Porcalla)
