Vice President Sara Duterte accused members of the House of Representatives of ignorance of the law when they ordered the detention of her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, in the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW).

Appearing before a hearing of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, Duterte said, “I will go to court, but every day you will be depriving a person of her liberty while I await [the court’s decision].”

The committee has extended Lopez’s detention from five days to 10 days after she skipped Monday’s probe, citing a stress disorder. Lopez was cited in contempt last Wednesday for being evasive and committing “undue interference” in the legislative inquiry.

Duterte’s chief of staff was reported to have told the Commission on Audit (CoA) not to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Appropriations to review the utilization of P500 million in confidential and intelligence funds that Duterte’s office received in 2022 and 2023.

“That is precisely the point, ma’am. If our action detaining your chief of staff is against the law, I think the proper remedy — and I think you’re a lawyer — is to go to court,” Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop shot back at Duterte.

“I’m just helping you, sir. Because the [actions] of the House of Representatives put the Philippines to shame,” the VP retorted.

On Saturday, Duterte threatened to have the President, First Lady Liza Marcos-Araneta, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez assassinated if she herself was killed.

Marcos and Romualdez both denounced Duterte’s threat on Monday, while Bureau of Corrections chief Gregorio Catapang said the CIW was ready to receive Lopez (See related stories).

Duterte accompanied Lopez from her House detention to St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City where she was initially confined. Later, Lopez was ordered transferred by the House to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center.

Illegal order

Davao Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, an ally of the Dutertes, suggested that members of the committee and Speaker Romualdez may be liable for arbitrary detention for making such an “illegal” order to detain Lopez at the CIW.

“There is no legal ground to detain attorney Lopez at the Correctional Institution [along with] those charged with a crime and sentenced by the courts,” Alvarez said.

“The House of Representatives has detention facilities. Why would you transfer her to a government facility other than the legislature and for convicted criminals? It is very clear this is a brazen abuse of authority and misuse of power,” the former House speaker pointed out.

Lopez’s detention was supposed to expire on Monday, 25 November, but ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro moved to extend it until 30 November, deeming her no-show at the continuation of the investigation as an attempt to obstruct it.

“By virtue of her conduct, the committee was deprived of invaluable information necessary to allow it to perform its role of crafting legislation for the improvement of the country’s system of governance and transparency,” Castro said.

Lopez furnished the committee with a medical certificate stating that she was diagnosed with “acute stress disorder following the series of incidents leading to my eventual transfer to the said government facility.”

The certificate stated that Lopez suffers, from among other things, anxiety, nightmares and flashbacks, alongside a diagnosis of musculoskeletal strain of both shoulders.

Lawmakers, however, disputed Lopez’s rationale given that the doctors never mentioned that she was physically incapable of attending the scheduled hearing.

Sagip Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, one of the very few allies of the VP in the House, attempted unsuccessfully to halt Castro’s motion. He argued that the panel fell short in assessing the veracity of the allegations that Lopez attempted to evade answering lawmakers’ questions directly.

“I think we deserve to know the assessment that was made. This concerns the liberty of an individual. Under the Constitution, no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. I think attorney Lopez deserves to be heard,” Marcoleta said.

In addition, he emphasized that Lopez’s letter to the CoA was simply a respectful request and the panel took it out of context.

‘Untruthful’

“Mr. Chair, attorney Lopez is merely explaining the nature of an audit observation memorandum. If I were the lawyer of the OVP, I would have done the same because I think the very nature of an AOM is not final and executory,” Marcoleta said.

“Why does the committee arrogate upon itself the very mandate and responsibility of the Commission on Audit?” he said.

Panel chairperson Joel Chua, however, defended the panel’s decision.

“While attorney Lopez presented herself as respectful or courteous, the committee found that her answers and actions from the beginning of this inquiry were evasive, uncooperative, and untruthful,” Chua countered.