The legal counsel of alleged ‘big boss’ of illegal Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) in the Philippines, Tony Yang, will be seeking a judicial assessment on the detention of his client as well as the House Quad Committee’s decision to cite him in contempt with the goal of nullifying this decision as it violates Yang’s right to due process.

At the ISTAMBAY (Ikaw, Sila, Tayo at Ako Maglilingkod sa Bayan) media forum at the Kapihan sa B Hotel, veteran lawyer Atty. Raymond Fortun disclosed that he has already requested a transcript of the stenographic notes of the House Quad Comm’s meeting where Yang was cited for contempt by members of the said committee.

Fortun enthused that to his belief, the Quad Comm’s decision to cite Yang in contempt violates his client’s rights despite having truthfully answered the queries asked of him by Santa Rosa, Laguna representative Dan Fernandez.

“Before he was questioned before the committee, I had told him to simply answer truthfully and not to lie and be evasive because he had nothing to hide,” he narrated.

However, when Yang answered some of the questions in a way that was not liked by the committee members, he was immediately cited in contempt.

Fortun cited the Lincoln Ong versus the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee wherein the Supreme Court ruled to nullify the contempt and arrest order issued against the Pharmally Corporation director Ong and former presidential adviser Michael Yang during a legislative inquiry on alleged irregularities in the procurement of emergency supplies during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

The High Tribunal pointed out that the contempt and arrest order against Ong and Yang were issued with grave abuse of discretion, adding that although the phrase ‘testifies falsely or evasively’ under the Senate’s rules of procedure is ‘not unconstitutional’, still in consideration of the broad definition of giving false or evasive testimony, the witness must, at the very least, be given a chance to explain why his or her testimony is not false or evasive.

This is where Fortun asserts that in Tony Yang’s case, “it bears underscoring that the purpose of the (Senate) committee’s proceedings is to conduct an inquiry or investigation to aid the Senate in crafting relevant legislation, and not to conduct a trial or make an adjudication.”

In view of the situation, he said that if the House Quad Comm does not act on the question legality of the detention of Yang based on contempt, he would be prompted to seek a more pertinent judicial assessment from the Supreme Court with the aim of nullifying the decision against his client.