After Duterte refuses to take oath, what do House and Senate rules say about swearing in resource persons?

Vice President Sara Duterte has stirred controversy anew after she refused to take an oath to tell the truth in a legislative hearing amid supposed nuances between being a "witness" and a "resource person."

Duterte made a surprise appearance during the Sept. 18 hearing on the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability. The committee sought to discuss Manila 2nd District Rep. Rolando Valeriano's privilege speech against issues involving the Office of the Vice President (OVP)'s budget.

Before the hearing started, resource persons from the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Budget and Management were asked to take an oath. They raised their right hands and answered the question, “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?"

A standard procedure, an oath is taken by resource persons during legislative inquiries of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But Duterte questioned the act of oath-taking.

“Witnesses lang po ang ino-oath. Sabi ninyo sa amin ngayon, resource persons kami," she told the committee chairman, Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua.

Chua, however, told Duterte that everyone is considered a resource person and a witness.

Pampanga 2nd District Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Duterte's ally, then defended her, noting that a resource person is different from a witness based on a Supreme Court ruling and a Senate precedent.

"Somebody who appears to be the accused has a different tier of protection from a witness, and in fact, can refuse to take the witness stand," Arroyo said, adding that based on the Constitution, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

She also alluded to Valeriano's privilege speech, which prompted the hearing, as it mentioned acts of “misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance” that Duterte had allegedly committed.

Lawmakers explained that resource person and witness are technical terms with similar meanings. Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Flores also told Arroyo that nobody was "technically accused of any wrongdoing" just yet, but the latter was quick to retort with, "Look at the privilege speech!"

What lawyers say about oath-taking

Are there ramifications that come with refusing to say a simple "I do" or "Yes" during oath-taking?

Atty. Hyacinth Merioles of Merioles Law Office told PhilSTAR L!fe that the essence of taking an oath is to "basically serve as a vouch for integrity, for telling the truth, for accountability."

Technicalities aside, Merioles said a resource person may be a witness, plain and simple.

"No big deal. Unless it is made a big deal," she said.

Atty. Jefferson Legado, a solo practitioner, meanwhile noted that a "resource person" is not defined nor mentioned in the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate as they both use "witness."

"However, the Supreme Court, in many of its decisions, used it interchangeably," Legado said, adding that its purpose is just one, i.e., to provide true information to the legislative bodies in aid of legislation.

"Thus, to ensure that the witness or resource person will give only true and accurate information, an oath or affirmation must first be taken," he said.

Legado said the refusal to take an oath or affirmation is a contemptible act for both chambers.

When either chamber cites individuals in contempt, they may be ordered to be detained in a designated place until they agree to produce the required documents or to testify.

Lying under oath also constitutes perjury, a separate criminal offense. It's commonly associated with court hearings.

The Revised Penal Code's Article 183 punishes a person who commits perjury.

In 2021, former president Rodrigo Duterte, Sara's father, signed Republic Act No. 11594 which increased penalties for perjury to six years and one day to 12 years (prision mayor). They must also pay a fine not exceeding P1 million and are banned from running for public office.

"There's not so much difference as the Senate, the House, and the courts of law may treat lying under oath a contemptible act or a separate crime in itself," Legado said.

As for Merioles, Duterte's refusal to take an oath may be a strategy.

"By refusing to take an oath, she does not want to hold herself accountable to her own statements during the proceeding," Merioles said. "If she lies, she can argue that her statements were not made under oath and, therefore, she cannot be held criminally liable for perjury."

The privilege speech

On Sept. 18, Valeriano questioned whether constituents benefited from the billions of pesos the OVP had.

Valeriano asked supposed whistleblowers to come forward about the OVP's alleged misuse of funds in its socioeconomic programs.

He also took a swipe at Duterte for her refusal to answer questions regarding her office's expenses, particularly the confidential funds worth P775 million for the OVP and the Department of Education, her former agency, from 2022 to 2023, during her budget proposal's first hearing.

She was seeking a P2.037-billion budget for 2025, which was cut to P733 million. Her office has a P1.885-billion budget for 2024.

The Manila 2nd District Rep. put questions on the lack of transparency in the OVP's expenditure on socioeconomic programs, citing the absence of supporting documents.

"We have not seen any paper trail or electronic trail that would serve as evidence of beneficiaries and partnership agreements,” he said. “She expected us to take at face value the figures in her presentation when there is much reason for us here in Congress to doubt the veracity of the figures in the presentation."

“Her claim of leaving it to the House to do what it thinks is right is just a palusot, a smokescreen, a cover,” he added.

Valeriano also implied that Duterte is loyal to the one "who blocks the boats of Filipino fishermen" or the one "who promotes POGOs."

'No misuse of funds'

Reading from her phone, Duterte said all OVP officials authorized her to represent them “simply because we have not done anything wrong."

"There is no misuse of funds," she said, adding she'd "gladly" respond to the findings of COA and cases filed in court.

Before walking out, Duterte accused the hearings of being a part of a "well-funded and coordinated political attack."

She claimed that Valeriano's privilege speech was "simply meant to say, 'Don't vote for Sara'" in 2028. There are speculations that she's running for the presidency in the next general elections.