Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

REP. MARC DOUGLAS C.

CAGAS IV, et al.,

Complainants,

- versus -

REP. WALDEN F. BELLO,

Respondent.

x------------------------------------------x

RESPONSE
(TO COMPLAINT DATED 17 AUGUST 2010)

RESPONDENT WALDEN F. BELLO (the ―Undersigned‖), in

compliance with the communication from the House Committee on

Ethics and Privileges dated 24 November 2010, and signed by its

Honorable Chairperson Erico B. Aumentado, respectfully submits this

Response to the above-captioned Complaint, pursuant to Section 17(b) of

the Committee Rules of Procedure.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1) The freedom of speech is one of the most essential freedoms, if not

the most essential freedom, in a democracy. Recognized as a human right

under international law, upheld in the statutes of every civilized nation

on the planet, and long-enshrined in our own fundamental law, the right

to speak and express opinions is one of the most cherished and dearly

held entitlements of a citizen living in a free society.

1
2) In the landmark case of United States v. Bustos1, Justice Malcolm,

speaking for the Supreme Court, upheld the importance of free speech

and declared that –

The interest of society and the maintenance of good government

demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to

comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of

free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses

of officialdom.

3) Freedom of speech is a principle especially crucial in Congress,

and free speech has long been guaranteed in our jurisdiction to members

of the legislature. Its purpose was explained by the Supreme Court in

Osmeña v. Pendatun2 in the following manner –

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a

fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the

democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose "is

to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge

his public trust with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably

necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and

that he should be protected from the resentment of every one,

however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may

occasion offense."

4) The above-captioned Complaint brought against the Undersigned

constitutes a brazen and unwarranted assault on this essential freedom.

1
G.R. No. L-12592. March 8, 1918
2
G.R. No. L-17144. October 28, 1960
2
Under the guise of taking action against what is very loosely and

generally claimed to be ―disorderly behavior‖ and ―unparliamentary

language,‖ the Complaint seeks nothing less than to stifle and suppress

the freedom of the Undersigned to speak his mind and express his

opinion on a matter of clear public interest, as is both his right and duty

as an elected representative to the House.

5) It is respectfully contended that to allow this utterly baseless

Complaint to prosper would not only result in prejudice to the

Undersigned himself, but more significantly, would undermine the

principle of free and open discussion so critical to the proceedings of the

House of Representatives, and indispensable to its role as representatives

and spokespersons of the Filipino people.

ARGUMENTS

The statements cited in the

Complaint, and attributed to

the Undersigned, do not

constitute unparliamentary

language or indecorous

remarks.

6) The Complaint cites three statements, or more accurately, portions

of statements, made by the Undersigned in the course of his privilege

speech entitled ―New Economics for the New Administration‖ on 2 August

2010. These are specified in paragraphs 18-20 and 29-31 of the

3
Complaint.

7) While the Complaint insists that the statements are ―expletives‖

and that their ―virulence and crudeness x x x speak for themselves‖

without further ―need for any elaboration and interpretation,‖ the

Undersigned respectfully begs to differ.

8) To begin with, it must be emphasized that no expletives were used

in the speech. An expletive is understood as ―an exclamation or oath,

especially one that is profane, vulgar, or obscene; an exclamation or

swearword.‖ None of the words in the statements cited by the Complaint

fall under this category.

9) The first statement cited, that ―Corruption was the signature of the

administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,‖ could hardly be construed

as unparliamentary or improper. In fact, it could not even be considered

as particularly novel.

10) Numerous articles have been published, even during the

incumbency of Mrs. Arroyo, that have characterized her administration

as corrupt. For instance, the Editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on

26 June 20103 entitled, quite explicitly, ―The Corrupt‖ expressed the

same sentiment. It stated –

[T]he people see the Arroyo administration as triumphantly, in-

your-face corrupt. For many if not most Filipinos, this has been

the most corrupt administration since the Marcos regime.

3
Available at http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20100626-277750/The-corrupt

4
 [emphasis supplied]

And further, after a discussion of various corruption scandals under the

Arroyo administration:

Together, these undisputed facts tell us that there was, in fact,

corruption of incredible proportions (enough to offer a Cabinet

secretary whose objections didn’t matter in the end a staggering

P200-million bribe).

Is it fair to define the legacy of an entire administration, the second

longest in our history, by one corruption scandal? But in fact,

there were many other corruption scandals, from former

Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante’s misuse of fertilizer

funds (2004) to Secretary Annabelle Abaya’s disclosure (in 2010!)

that even the Office of the Presidential Adviser for the Peace

Process was pervasively corrupt.

In other words, the NBN-ZTE deal was not an isolated case, but

the crowning glory of Arroyo-era corruption.

[emphasis supplied]

11) Similarly, a public opinion survey conducted by Pulse Asia in July

2010, after Mrs. Arroyo stepped down from office, indicated that 42% of

Filipinos considered her to be the most corrupt leader in Philippine

history, beating out Ferdinand Marcos (35%) and Joseph Estrada (16%)

for this dubious distinction.4

4
See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSP30281220071212

5
12) Very clearly, therefore, in adverting to the corruption of the Arroyo

administration, the Undersigned was not expressing an idea that was

unusual, unwarranted, or unexpected. He was merely stating, by way of

introduction to another point, a sentiment that had been repeatedly

expressed in public fora and the media, and was in fact shared by a

substantial portion of the Filipino people who he is legally and morally

bound to represent. How this could be ―unparliamentary,‖ therefore,

defies all understanding.

13) The same applies to the statement that ―They had a good model at

the top and this was a model not only in corruption and plunder but a

model on how to behave with impunity and subvert democratic

institutions.‖ Again, this sentiment has been repeatedly and consistently

expressed in media throughout the course of the Arroyo administration,

and in its aftermath, as well as being shared by a substantial percentage

of citizens.

14) The Complaint makes much of the use of the words ―pigs‖ and

―buwaya‖ (crocodiles) in the speech. It must be pointed out, however,

that first, neither was used in reference to Mrs. Arroyo or explicitly to any

other member of the House, and second, these are words commonly used

figuratively in reference to corrupt public officials.

15) In the same vein, the statement that ―the Representative of the

Second District of Pampanga awaits prosecution and hopefully this

process gets under way soon so that she can be transported from this

august chamber to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa where she

belongs,‖ is hardly unusual or unique. Numerous calls for a prosecution

6
of Mrs. Arroyo have already been made by various groups and media

personalities. For instance, columnist Ramon Tulfo, stated in a 25

September 2007 column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer5 that –

Plunder cases and cases involving the disappearances and

murders of political activists and journalists await GMA after she

steps down in 2010.

What goes around comes around. That’s the law of karma.

16) In fact, the President himself has created a Truth Commission

tasked to investigate reports of graft and corruption ―of such scale and

magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of

the people,‖ involving third level public officers and higher, their co-

principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any,

during the previous administration. This is a recognition that

investigation, prosecution and conviction of public officials, up to and

possibly including the former President, will be undertaken by the

current administration.

17) It should also be noted that the statements cited pertained mainly

to the Arroyo administration as a whole, and not to the personal

character of Mrs. Arroyo as an individual. They are thus not personal

attacks or ―character assassination‖ but opinions (shared by many

Filipinos) on the conduct of a previous administration – a valid public

issue for discussion by the people’s representatives.

18) The lengthy citations in the Complaint of specific words construed

5
See : http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20070925-
90487/Arroyo_administration_more_corrupt_than_Erap%92s%3F
7
as ―unparliamentary‖ in other jurisdictions since the 1800s cannot be

simply transplanted into our jurisdiction. If one thing is clear from that

lengthy discussion, whether a particular statement is unparliamentary

must be decided in terms of the social and cultural context. Calling

somebody a ―blatherskite‖ (a babbling, foolish person) in 1890, may have

been the height of unpardonable insult, 120 years later, it will, in all

likelihood, not even be understood. None of the statements cited in the

Complaint are unacceptable, when gauged against the standard of what

has in fact, already been stated repeatedly in public and in the media

within the current Philippine context.

19) It is thus abundantly clear that none of the statements cited in the

Complaint are ―expletives‖ that could, by any stretch of logic, be

considered as ―unparliamentary‖ or ―indecorous.‖ Certainly, they may not

be flattering to Mrs. Arroyo – after all, who would want to have her

administration characterized as ―corrupt‖ – but they are widely held, and

in that sense, validly expressed. Again to quote Justice Malcolm in

Bustos6 --

Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust

accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear

conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with

reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the

intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course,

criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the

individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be

born for the common good. Rising superior to any official, or set of

6
Supra
8
 officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary

— to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion

should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.

The statements cited in the

Complaint should not be taken

out of the context of the entire

speech.

20) It is exceedingly apparent that the speech was not about Mrs.

Arroyo personally or even her administration. It was instead, as stated in

the speech itself, about ―the need of the [present] administration to

articulate a policy paradigm to compliment its anti-corruption thrust.‖

21) The very title of the speech, ―New Economics for the New

Administration,‖ discloses this fact readily.

22) It is thus inappropriate to pick and choose specific phrases in the

speech, taken completely out of context, mix them up in a convenient

manner,7 and then cry foul, or, in this case, ―unparliamentary language.‖

In Osmena v. Pendatun,8 cited in the Complaint, the speech for which

then Rep. Sergio Osmeña, Jr. was disciplined was entitled ―A Message to

Garcia,‖ and specifically about accusations of misconduct against then

President Garcia, in stark contrast to the current situation where the

speech was about a completely different issue.

The statements were stricken

7
See par. 30 of the Complaint, for instance.
8
Supra.
9
from the record and can no

longer be used as a basis for

any complaint.

23) The Journal of the House of Representatives of 2 August 2010

clearly indicates that the statements cited by the Complaint were ordered

stricken from the records.9

24) As the Journal shows, although there was a subsequent exchange

between Rep. Cagas and the Undersigned after the Chair ordered the

statements stricken from the records, which led the Undersigned to state

that ―Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman persists in this, I refuse to agree to

any change in my paper,‖ in response to Rep. Cagas’ insistence on taking

the matter up with the Ethics Committee, the original order to strike out

the statements was never revoked.

25) Hence, as the Journal clearly reflects, the statements are no longer

part of the House records. As such, they are deemed never to have been

uttered, and therefore, cannot be subsequently invoked as basis for a

complaint.

26) This is also the import of Section 91 of the House Rules, which

states that –

Section 91. Decorum. The Member who has the floor shall confine

himself to the question under debate, avoid personalities in all

cases and refrain from indecorous words or acts. The Chair may,

motu proprio or as the House may direct, declare statements,

remarks or words unparliamentary, and order that these be

9
See Excerpt attached herewith as Annex 1
10
 stricken off the record. A Member who is called to order by

another for words spoken in debate, shall indicate the words

objected to. The Secretary General shall note and read aloud such

words. However, the Member shall not be held to answer nor be

subject to censure by the House if further debate or other

business intervenes.

27) Clearly, if after certain words have been stricken off the record,

further business intervenes, as in this case, no further action may be

taken against the Member in question. A mere ―reservation‖ to file a

subsequent complaint cannot serve to circumvent this rule.

28) If the objective was to file a complaint against the Undersigned,

then the order to strike the remarks should have been objected to, and a

motion to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee should immediately

have been made. This was not done in this case, however.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the Complaint dated 17 August 2010 against the
Undersigned be DISMISSED, and that the Honorable Committee on
Ethics and Privileges DETERMINE that NO FURTHER ACTION is
appropriate in this matter.

Quezon City, 4 December 2010.

WALDEN F. BELLO

11