Statement from the concerned members of Class 2002 of the San Beda College of Law

ON THE ORDER OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND  PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TO CITE IN CONTEMPT AND DETAIN  ATTY. ZULEIKA T. LOPEZ 

We, the members of the Class of 2002 of the San Beda University – College of Law (Manila), express our deep concern about the detention of our classmate and fellow lawyer, Atty. Zuleika T. Lopez, Chief of Staff of the Office of the Vice President of the  Republic of the Philippines (“OVP”), following the decision of the Congressional  Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability to cite her in contempt.  

Atty. Lopez was cited in contempt for her alleged “undue interference” with the  Committee’s investigation of the OVP’s use of confidential funds, based on a letter she  sent to the Commission on Audit (COA) dated August 21, 2024. The letter urged the  COA not to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by the House Committee on  Appropriations, citing the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, among other  reasons. 

The said letter could not possibly be considered as “undue interference” in the ongoing inquiry, as it was not directed at any subpoena duces tecum or processes issued by  the Committee. Rather, it pertained to the subpoena duces tecum issued by another body— the Committee on Appropriations — in the context of budget deliberations. In fact, the  Committee’s investigation into the OVP’s confidential funds began only on September  18, 2024, about a month after the subject letter was issued. There can be no interference in an investigation that has not yet commenced.  

In addition, Atty. Lopez was cooperative during the Committee’s hearing on  November 20, 2024, giving the Committee members due respect as she tried answering  all their questions. There is, therefore, nothing in Section 11 of the House Rules of  Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (“Rules”) that justifies the penalty of  contempt imposed on her by the Committee. 

We are particularly concerned about the manner by which Atty. Lopez was  ordered to be transferred to a correctional facility late at night on a Friday, under  circumstances that could have limited her access to legal remedies and counsel. This  raises serious questions about whether due process has been fully observed. 

As lawyers, we affirm the fundamental principle that justice must be impartial and  that due process must be upheld for all individuals, regardless of political inclinations.  Any deprivation of liberty must strictly adhere to the rule of law and established  procedures, ensuring fairness and respect for individual rights.

We stand in solidarity with Atty. Lopez and respectfully call on all involved to  ensure that her Constitutional rights are protected and that all actions taken are firmly  grounded in the law. 

It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that Congress’ power of legislative  investigation, including its exercise of contempt power, is subject to three limitations: (1) the inquiry must be “in aid of legislation;” (2) the inquiry must be conducted in  accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; and more importantly, (3) “[t]he  rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” Detaining Atty.  Lopez and, worse, directing her commitment to a correctional facility as if she were a  felon or under criminal investigation gravely violates her Constitutional right to due  process. 

We, therefore, strongly appeal to the Committee to urgently reconsider its decision  and align its actions in accordance with its own Rules and the Constitution.