Senate executive sessions never a guarantee of secrecy

IT’S easy to know where an executive session is being held in the Senate: Reporters and cameramen would be right at the door, waiting for it to open. Lawmakers or resource persons would be “ambushed,” or, for the more discreet interviewees, phone calls are made and questions are answered.

“‘Just don’t quote me’ was the rule, but they (lawmakers) would almost always talk,” says Jun Bautista, who covered the legislative beat from 1984 to 2000 as a reporter of GMA 7, and up to now, as a columnist of SunStar.

“Walang nagwawala (No one loses his cool about it),” says Bautista, referring to the controversy generated by the article written by Philippine Daily Inquirer reporter Juliet Labog-Javellana about the executive session held by the Senate on the $329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal.

Labog-Javellana, quoting four sources, reported that former National Economic and Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri was “on the verge” of revealing more about the alleged bribery that attended the deal when Senator Joker Arroyo “intervened” and had tried to prevent Neri from talking. Later, the report said, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr. was ushered in as Neri’s “lawyer.” Andaya reportedly urged senators “not to press Neri to talk because the latter was sick.”

Arroyo was so incensed by the report that he asked the Senate committee on ethics to investigate the leak and to cite Labog-Javellana for contempt unless she names her sources.

To be fair, under the rules of the Senate, all who attend executive sessions are explicitly barred from discussing testimonies or documents given behind closed doors, unless permitted by the committee chairman. Below is the full text of that rule:

Sec. 11. Executive Session and Public Hearing

(1) If the Committee believes that the interrogation of a witness in a public hearing might endanger national security, it may, motu proprio or upon motion of any interested party, conduct its inquiry in an executive session for the purpose of determining the necessity or advisability of conducting such interrogation thereafter in public hearing;

2) Attendance at executive sessions shall be limited to members of the Committee, its staff, other Members of the Senate, and other persons whose presence is requested or allowed by the Chairman; and

(3) Testimony taken or material presented in an executive session, or any summary thereof, shall not be made public, in whole or in part, unless authorized by the Committee.

Despite this rule, journalists are able to gather information about closed-door hearings from lawmakers themselves.

“The Senate is a leaky town, it’s like a sieve, at matagal nang binabastos ang executive sessions (executive sessions have long been treated with disrespect),” says former Senator Rene Saguisag. He says leaks can often be attributed to a lawmaker’s personal agenda on an issue, or the desire to be in the good graces of mediamen. He recalls that during his time at the Senate, he was often greeted by headlines generated by executive sessions held the previous day, usually about the fate of the US bases.

“We had our usual suspects, iyong mga nagpapalakas sa media (those who wanted to earn brownie points with media people),” he says. As chairman of the Senate committee on ethics, Saguisag recalls not having had to deal with complaints similar to Arroyo’s.

“It’s a big mistake to go after Juliet over this one,” says Bautista. “But it’s natural for (Sen. Joker) Arroyo to react like that, since the report put him in bad light,” Bautista adds. Saguisag agrees. “You cannot blame the journalist for pursuing the story. It’s enterprise,” Saguisag says.

Broadcast journalist Arnold Clavio, who covered the Senate from 1987 to 1998, blames the controversy on lawmakers who do not honor the sanctity of matters discussed behind closed doors. “Hindi naman imbento iyong report ni Juliet. Enterprising lang siya, (Juliet did not invent her report. It was a product of enterprise,” Clavio says. But he says the leaks are damaging the institution. “The closed-door hearings are meant to help them in legislation. Who will agree to testify before the Senate if they can’t guarantee secrecy when needed?” he asks.

Saguisag agrees leaks are hurting an institution “that cannot be any lower at this point,” but draws the line on Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s proposal to repeal Republic Act 53, otherwise known as the Sotto Law, enacted in 1946. That law protects journalists from being compelled to name their sources. “The proposal to repeal the Sotto law has a chilling effect. In an imperfect world, that law is fair. It’s a good law,” says Saguisag.

Labog-Javellana admits she was surprised at the turn of events, having talked to Sen. Arroyo to get the lawmaker’s reaction before writing her story. “Nalungkot ako, kasi si Joker iyon (I was saddened because it’s Joker).” Arroyo and Labog-Javellana have known each other since 1992, back when Arroyo was a first-term congressman of Makati at the House of Representatives.