MANILAbmy88, Philippines — After spending 10 days in detention – mostly at a government hospital – the Office of the Vice President’s chief of staff Zuleika Lopez has been ordered released from custody of the House of Representatives.
House committee on good government and public accountability chairman Rep. Joel Chua issued the order for Lopez’s release to House sergeant-at-arms Police Maj. Gen. Napoleon Taas.
“In view of the undertaking to attend all hearings, you are hereby ordered to immediately release Atty. Zuleika T. Lopez after a medical examination has been conducted on her,” Chua said in the release order dated Nov. 30.
Chua’s committee is investigating Duterte on her alleged misuse of P500 million in confidential funds of the OVP and P112.5 million of the Department of Education (DepEd).
With her release, Lopez committed to attend the committee’s next hearing.
On Nov. 20, Chua’s committee cited Lopez in contempt and ordered her detention for “undue interference in proceedings.”
Deputy Minority Leader and ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro made the motion to cite Lopez in contempt, citing her letter asking the Commission on Audit (COA) not to submit to the committee its report on the disbursement of the P612.5 million in confidential funds of the OVP and the DepEd.
During the Nov. 20 hearing of the good government committee, Lopez tried to appeal to the panel for the lifting of the contempt order, saying that her letter was a “respectful request to the Commission on Audit.”
“There was no intention, Your Honor, to demand, order or commandeer them into doing something they did not want to do,” Lopez said, referring to the OVP’s Aug. 21 letter to COA.
Lawmakers deemed her communication with COA as an instruction to state auditors not to comply with the subpoena issued by Chua’s committee.
Lopez explained that she made the request because COA’s audit observations were not yet final.
The letter, which she signed, stated that “the subject subpoena should not be complied with,” citing as reason a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Castro rejected Lopez’s explanation, stating that the contempt citation was not only about the letter but also due to her supposed evasive answers during the hearing.
Lopez repeatedly claimed that she was unaware of the transactions involving confidential funds, which baffled lawmakers given that she was Duterte’s highest-ranking official.
“Based on the totality of the discussion from 10 a.m. to now, Mr. Chair, we can see that Atty. Lopez’s answers have been very evasive. And we can clearly see that it’s not just this letter, Mr. Chair, but the entirety of the discussions earlier – that’s the reason why we moved to cite her in contempt,” Castro said.
Chua’s committee initially ordered Lopez’s detention to end Nov. 25, the schedule of the next hearing of the committee on the confidential funds.
In her detention at the House premises, Lopez was visited by Duterte who later decided to stay – in the office of her brother Rep. Paolo Duterte – until her release.
Lopez was later transferred to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center after she complained of dizziness and nausea, and later to St. Luke’s Medical Center, then back to VMMC.
Her transfer from House detention to the two hospitals was marred by disorder and commotion among her supporters and authorities.
Meanwhile, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said that as a “strictly non-political” organization, it cannot intervene in the case of Lopez, who is one of its members.
“The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly,” the IBP said in a statement in response to criticism from former presidential spokesman Harry Roque of the group’s silence on the detention of Lopez.
Roque raised his criticism of the IBP in a Facebook (Meta) post where he called Lopez “one of us.”
While not explicitly naming Lopez, the IBP said the situation involved the “chief of staff of a national political figure engaged in a partisan feud with another national figure.”
In its statement, the IBP emphasized its strict adherence to Section 4 of its revised by-laws, promulgated by the Supreme Court in March 2023, which prohibits the organization from engaging in any partisan political activities.
The IBP pointed out that Lopez’s role as chief of staff, and not her status as a lawyer, was the primary reason for her inclusion in the inquiry by the House of Representatives’ committee on good government and public accountability.
The IBP stressed that its involvement in Lopez’s case or in similar cases could jeopardize its impartiality and be construed as political partisanship.
The organization also stressed that the rights of individuals summoned in legislative inquiries have been established in Supreme Court rulings. These include legal remedies available to individuals whose rights may have been violated.
“All lawyers are presumed to know these Supreme Court decisions because these form part of the law of the land,” the IBP noted, referring to the legal principle Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat (Ignorance of the law excuses no one).
While the IBP avoids direct involvement, it encourages any lawyer willing to assist a detained individual pursue appropriate legal remedies.
“Any lawyer who wishes to assist an individual held in contempt and ordered detained by the committee of Congress is presumed to know the legal remedies available to that individual and is encouraged to immediately take legal action to protect the rights of the said individualbmy88,” the IBP stated. — Christine Boton