Supreme Court voids arrest of Pharmally execs

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Senate had committed grave abuse of discretion when it cited in contempt and ordered the arrest of Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. executives Lincoln Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming.

In 2021, the Senate, led by then Blue Ribbon committee chairman Richard Gordon, cited Ong and Yang in contempt for allegedly giving false and evasive answers during the upper chamber’s hearing on Sept. 10, 2021 regarding Pharmally’s contract with the government in its purchase of COVID-19 medical supplies.

In his petition before the SC, Ong argued that the Senate illegally encroached upon the exclusive constitutional domain of the judiciary when it found him guilty of giving false testimony, adding that the Senate proceeded against Ong “under an erroneous concept and gravely abusive exercise of contempt power.”

Meanwhile, in Yang’s petition, he argued that the Senate committed grave abuse of power when it issued arrest orders despite a lack of legal basis and compelled him to answer questions and submit documents and information that were beyond the scope of the legislative inquiry and in violation of his rights to privacy.

He also questioned the “high-handed and oppressive conduct of proceedings,” claiming that the Senate treated resource persons before it “worse than an accused in a criminal proceeding.”

In its decision promulgated March 28, the SC said the order of arrest and contempt case against the two Pharmally executives violated their rights to due process.

“The Committee’s grave abuse of discretion lay in its precipitate act of citing petitioners Ong and Yang in contempt and ordering their arrests without giving them the opportunity to be heard,” SC said.

The ruling noted the observation of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who observed that inconsistent answers were equated by the Senate with testifying evasively.

“Whether a witness genuinely did not know or did not recall the answer, or was evasive in answering a question is largely a matter of judgment or opinion... This determination requires ‘an assessment of the totality of the evidence presented to determine whether a witness speaks truthfully or