TULAD ng kanyang boss na si Vice President Sara Duterte, tumanggi rin na manumpa na magsasabi ng totoo ang chief lawyer ng Office of Vice President (OVP) na dumalo sa pagdinig ng House committee on good government and public accountability noong Lunes.

Noong Setyembre 18, dumalo ang Bise Presidente sa pagdinig ng komite subalit tumanggi itong manumpa na magsasabi ng totoo sa pagdinig kaugnay ng paggastos nito ng P625 milyong confidential funds noong 2022 at 2023, na inilaan sa OVP at Department of Education (DepEd) na dati nitong pinamumunuan.

Ang pagtanggi ni Emily Torrentira, chief ng Legal Affairs Department ng OVP, na manumpa sa pagsasabi ng katotohanan ay nag-udyok sa panel na pinamumunuan ni Manila Rep. Joel Chua na paalisin ito sa pagdinig.

Si Torrentira ay hindi kabilang sa mga opisyal ng OVP na inimbita ng komite upang magpaliwanag tungkol sa mga kaduda-dudang natuklasan sa audit kaugnay ng paggamit ng P625 milyong confidential and/or intelligence fund (CIF) ng OVP at DepEd.

Kinuwestyon ng Commission on Audit (COA) ang paggastos sa mga confidential fund.

Bagama’t hindi siya imbitado, dumalo si Torrentira sa pagdinig ng Kamara subalit ayon sa committee secretariat na si Sheryl Cristine V. Lagrosas, tumanggi itong manumpa na magsasabi ng totoo gaya ng ibang dumalong resource person.

Kaya’t tanong ni Abang Lingkod Party-list Rep. Joseph Stephen Paduano: “May I ask the good attorney, what is your role in this, you were not invited but you are present in today’s hearing but you never take your oath? Why? What is your presence (here for)?

“Mr. Chair, your honor, I am the chief of legal affairs of the Office of the Vice President. I am here to represent the institution,” tugon naman ng abogado.

“So, you are here to represent the institution. You should, before talking, you should take your oath. Because that is on record. You’re a lawyer, you know that, you cannot speak unless, until you take your oath. That’s the rule, internal rules of this House and of this committee,” saad ni Paduano kay Torrentira.

“You cannot speak unless you take your oath, or else I will move to excuse you from this room,” ayon pa sa mambabatas.

Ipinagtataka naman ni Sta. Rosa City Rep. Dan Fernandez kung bakit tumanggi ang chief lawyer ng OVP na manumpa na magsasabi ng katotohanan.

“No, your honor, I am not refusing to take the oath. Prior to being asked to take the oath, I was trying to explain, your honor, that I am not an invited resource person… that I’ve only been asked now to explain why there was no receipt of subpoena for the persons who are not present here. That is what I have been trying to say,” tugon ni Torrentira.

Ayon sa kanya, batay sa mga alituntunin ng komite at ng Rules of Court, “dapat gawin ang personal service sa mga resource person na binibigyan ng subpoena.”

“They being not present in the office at that time, no person can receive on their behalf, and hence there will be no proper service,” saad pa nito.

“Has somebody told you not to accept all those invitations?” tanong ni Fernandez.

“No, your honor, it was a… it is in accordance with the rules,” sagot ni Torrentira.

Habang nagpapatuloy ang palitan ng mga tanong at sagot, pumagitna si Deputy Speaker David Suarez.

“Point of order, Mr. Chair, I take the position of Congressman Paduano. I really don’t know why she’s here. Has she forwarded any explanation, written, as to her attendance?” tanong pa nito.

“Before we can even proceed to asking her to take her oath, has she communicated officially to the committee that she is indeed representing the Office of the Vice President? Is there any letter that whereby Atty. Torrentina is given authority to represent the OVP?” giit pa ni Suarez.

Ipinagbigay-alam ni Lagrosas sa panel na walang isinumite si Torrentira na authorization letter, dahilan upang imungkahi ni Paduano na paalisin na lamang ang abogado ng OVP.

“First and foremost, since the good lawyer has no written authority coming from the Vice President; second, she never took her oath, so Mr. Chairman, first I move that we strike out from record all the statement being made by the good attorney… I move that we excuse the good lady, attorney from this room and request the OSAA (Office of Sergeant-at-Arms) to escort the good attorney outside of this room,” giit nito.

Ipinaliwanag ni Suarez ang desisyon ng komite: “Gusto ko lang po ilagay sa tamang perspective ‘yong dahilan kung bakit po pina-excuse po natin ‘yong isang indibidwal na dumalo sa ating hearing. Baka po kasi magkaroon ng misunderstanding why she was excused from our hearing.”

“Number one, she was not invited to attend today’s hearing. Number two, she did not take her oath, so we don’t even know the personalities and the circumstances to why she is here, and no communication was forwarded to the committee as to her attendance. For all we know, she could be somebody posing for somebody, and the committee cannot act on mere presentation without proper representation to the said committee,” dagdag pa ng kongresista mula sa Quezon.