THE House prosecution may ask the Senate Impeachment Court to issue a show-cause order and other appropriate remedies if Special Disbursing Officers (SDO) Gina Acosta and Edward Fajarda fail to comply with subpoenas directing them to testify about confidential funds they encashed.
Counsel for the House prosecution panel and spokesperson Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. said Monday that the prosecution had not received confirmation from either witness about their attendance.
“We have not received any word from them as to whether or not they will appear in court,” Tolosa said during an online press conference.
Acosta served as SDO of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), while Fajarda held the same position for the Department of Education (DepEd) when Vice President Sara Z. Duterte concurrently served as Education Secretary.
Former Land Bank branch managers testified that Acosta encashed four OVP checks worth P125 million each. Fajarda encashed three DepEd checks, each worth P37.5 million. The seven checks had a combined value of P612.5 million.
Tolosa said the prosecution expected both witnesses to follow the Impeachment Court’s directive without the need for further action.
“First of all, we’re hoping that they’ll just follow the directive to appear before the impeachment court nang hindi na magkaroon ng problema,” he said.
Deputy Speaker Janette Garin said she recalled seeing the prospective witnesses observing the proceedings in the Senate on several occasions.
“I saw them more than four times na nandun sila na nanonood,” Garin said.
The prosecution seeks to ask Acosta and Fajarda what happened to the cash after they encashed the confidential fund checks, including how it was distributed and what records supported the reported confidential operations.
However, Tolosa said that if either witness failed to appear, the prosecution could first ask the court to require an explanation.
“Ang susunod diyan, we’ll probably ask the court to issue a show-cause order to these people para mabigyan sila ng pagkakataon to explain bakit hindi sila humarap,” he said.
“Kung hindi sila nakapagbigay ng sufficient justification, the court will probably cite them in contempt to compel their attendance,” Tolosa said.
He clarified that the Impeachment Court—not the prosecution—would determine whether an explanation was sufficient and whether contempt or another measure is warranted.
“Those are some of the remedies that are immediately available to us in case they won’t appear,” Tolosa said.
Tolosa stressed that the immediate objective of the prosecution is to secure their attendance and obtain their sworn explanations.
“Kung hindi nila susundan ang na-issue na subpoena ng impeachment court, then we’ll avail of the appropriate remedies under the law para masigurado na ma-compel silang to attend and testify,” he said.
Tolosa said the expected testimony of Acosta and Fajarda will form part of the prosecution’s presentation under Article I concerning the alleged misuse and irregular liquidation of OVP and DepEd confidential funds.
metrosundaily
