Young Guns leaders ask: Who would benefit from OVP COP’s absence?
LEADERS of the Young Guns of the House of Representatives on Wednesday raised questions on who would benefit from the sudden departure to the US of Zuleika Lopez, the chief-of-staff of the Office of the Vice President (OVP), on the eve of a House Blue Ribbon Committee hearing into the alleged misuse of P612.5 million confidential funds.
Deputy Majority Leader Jude Acidre of Tingog Party-list and House Assistant Majority Leaders Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur and Jil Bongalon of Ako Bicol Party-list and Cagayan de Oro Rep. Lordan Suan all criticized Lopez for leaving the country when she was invited by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability Acidre questioned the timing of Lopez’s departure and asked who would benefit from her absence.
“The first question you should be asking is, who is set to benefit from her absence? Sino ang magbe-benepisyo na umalis siya?” Acidre said.
Acidre noted that Lopez and other OVP officials had been invited to attend the hearings multiple times, and her absence raised concerns among lawmakers.
“This is the fourth time, I believe, that they were invited to the hearings. Siguro justifiable naman if you would imply bad faith, na umalis siya sa gabi, bago nangyari iyung hearing,” Acidre added.
Acidre emphasized the importance of respecting legislative processes, pointing out that ignoring committee invitations sets a dangerous precedent.
“Hindi puwedeng i-balewala na lang ng komite na ini-ignore ang mga paanyaya. Kasi kung hahayaan ho namin na ibalewala lang ang mga paanyaya ng mga komite ng Kongreso, sino ang makakapigil sa iba na balewalain din ang mga susunod pang pagdinig ng ating mga komite?” he said.
Adiong shared similar sentiments, stressing that Lopez’s decision to leave for a personal trip instead of attending the hearing was questionable.
“The timing is very suspicious. It also speaks of priority; as a public officer and a public official working in the government, it is your duty to respond to an official invitation by your co-equal branch, especially if it discusses a very important matter which is the utilization of public funds,” Adiong said.
Adiong argued that as a public employee, Lopez has a duty to attend the hearing above any private matters.
“It is incumbent upon COS Zuleika to appear before the committee because that’s her duty. Duty above personal travel dapat,” he insisted.
Bongalon pointed out that while good faith is presumed in every act, the circumstances surrounding Lopez’s departure raise doubts.
“Good faith is presumed in every act but the presumption does not apply in this case. Ibig sabihin mayroon bad faith. They were invited several times. Umalis po siya ng bansa the night before the scheduled hearing,” he said.
Bongalon also said that the public could interpret Lopez’s absence as an attempt to evade accountability.
“Ang implikasyon po kasi nito is magdududa po kasi yung taong bayan. Ibig sabihin baka tumatakas sila or iniiwasan nila ito pong hearing para hindi sila matanong sa mga issues na pinupukul sa kanila,” he added.
Suan agreed, reminding that “flight is an indication of guilt.” He expressed hope that this would not apply to Lopez’s case.
“The guilty flee when no one pursue it, but the innocent are bold as a lion. So gaya nang sinasabi ni Atty. Jil na kung wala namang tinatago, wala namang reason na umiwas po tayo,” Suan said.
Adiong said that Lopez’s absence reinforces public perception that the OVP might be avoiding the issue.
“If they continue on behaving like this, refusing the invitation… then they reinforce the public perception. Mayron talaga silang iniiwasang sagutin,” he said.
Acidre highlighted that Lopez’s absence leaves many questions unanswered, as none of the other OVP officials present at the hearing could provide categorical responses to the committee’s inquiries.
“With her absence, a lot of questions will be left unanswered,” he said.
Bongalon called on Lopez to prioritize her public duty over personal interests, emphasizing that she had a responsibility to explain the alleged irregularities.
“The chief of staff has the obligation to explain the irregularities, the concerns and the issues kasi kung wala naman tinatago bakit ka umiiwas?” he argued.
Acidre also asserted that the hearings are not meant to prosecute individuals but to fulfill the legislative duty of oversight.
“This is not just a matter of really zeroing in on specific individuals. But this is also to protect the integrity of the processes that we have here in the House and also to uphold the dignity of the institution,” he stated.
