MASADA warns House panel of usurpation, contempt over transfer order

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY—The Masa Sara Duterte Alliance (MASADA) warned Thursday that members of the House Committee on Justice who issued a subpoena duces tecum and ordered the transfer of Ramil Madriaga from the Taguig high-security jail to the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) may face usurpation of authority and contempt charges.

Benito Ranque, MASADA founding chairman, said that by issuing a subpoena duces tecum, the congressmen were usurping the exclusive authority of the Senate acting as an impeachment court, and that the order to transfer Madriaga, who was facing kidnapping charges before a Manila court, was an intrusion into the power of the Manila Regional Trial Court.

“Practically all members of House committee on Justice except Cagayan deOro Rufus Rodriguez who may face crmiynal charges in corts” he said

Earlier, MASADA issued a statement, saying the panel was overacting as the prosecutor, judge, and executioner in deliberating the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

After initiating what it called a “Chopsuey, recycled” impeachment complaint, the panel is now conducting a mini trial, which is beyond its power.

“ The panel members who voted to issue the subpoena are now acting as judges; later the will decide the guilt of Inday Sara” it said.

MASADA said that the two impeachment complaints being deliberated by the House Committee on Justice had the same narratives as the first impeachment complaint declared void by the Supreme Court and violated the one-year ban.

The statement said the House Secretary General has transmitted all the impeachment complaints to the House Speaker, which in turn transmitted the complaints to the Committee on Rules and then to the Justice Committee.

It said the Committee on Justice was supposed to consolidate the four impeachment complaints, but the justice panel deliberated on the complaints separately and ruled that the first impeachment violated the one-year ban.

“The committee excluded the first complaint but delebrated the other complaint making it like a chopsuey”

The statement said when the first complaint was filed on Feb. 2, the countdown started, and while the other complaints were filed later with the same narratives but with different endorsements, they were practically consolidated when the Committee on Rules transmitted them to the Justice Committee.

Instead of voting to issue a subpoena, the panel should have voted on whether the complaints had probable cause and then transmitted them to the plenary for voting and to the Senate, where the actual trial will be conducted.