House panel cites Roque, ex-PCSO GM in contempt

MANILA, Philippines —  Former presidential spokesman Harry Roque and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) general manager Royina Garma have been cited in contempt by the quad committee of the House of Representatives.

The joint panel yesterday cited Roque in contempt for the second time after he failed to submit subpoenaed documents related to Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs). Roque served as former president Rodrigo Duterte’s spokesman.

Meanwhile, Garma was deemed to have lied to lawmakers during the joint panel’s probe into the 2016 killing of three convicted Chinese drug traffickers at the Davao penal colony.

Duterte is allegedly the mastermind behind the drug convicts’ deaths.

Roque is being questioned over his supposed engagement as a lawyer for Lucky South 99. Belongings  of his former Malacañang staff were seized during the June 5 raid on the POGO hub in Porac, Pampanga, following reports of human trafficking, torture and other criminal activities in the compound.

The subpoenaed documents, which include Roque’s statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, are crucial to the probe of the quad committee of the House of Representatives, Rep. Gerville Luistro said.

“The quad committee has established overwhelming circumstantial evidence showing the connection of Atty. Harry Roque to Lucky South 99, which is a POGO operation,” she said.

The joint panel ordered Roque’s detention.

Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, presiding chair of the joint panel, approved Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores’ motion after House members posed no objection.

This is the second time the quad committee cited Roque in contempt since its Aug. 22 hearing, wherein he lied about his absence from an earlier hearing.

Having missed the last three hearings, Roque was issued a subpoena compelling him to appear and testify at the next hearing.

Last week, Roque filed a motion to quash the subpoena and invoked his right to privacy and against self-incrimination.

Luistro argued that “the right of the people to access information on matters of public concern generally prevails over the right to privacy,” citing the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks.

“In the