MANILA – Linconn Ong, the director of the accused Pharmally Pharmaceuticals Inc., petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday, questioning his ongoing detention at the Philippine Senate building in Pasay City.
In a petition, Ong’s counsel Ferdinand Topacio claimed that his client had not been formally called by the Senate and discovered only through media reports on Sept. 7 that he was among those cited in contempt and ordered arrested and detained for failing to appear at the Aug. 27 and Sept. 7 hearings.
Topacio stated that Ong joined the following session via videoconference on September 10 despite not having received a subpoena or invitation.
During the hearing, a Senate committee ordered Ong’s arrest for avoiding questions about the government’s acquisition of medical supplies for its pandemic response through Pharmally.
After the Pharmally executive testified during the hearing that he was fighting Covid-19, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Richard Gordon allowed Ong to be placed under home arrest.
Ong’s detention in the Senate was extended on September 21.
Topacio said Ong’s detention “is not for refusal to appear as, in fact, after he voluntary appeared.”
“He was nevertheless arrested and detained; is not for non-submission of documents nor refusal to be sworn or answer questions,” he added.
He also stated that there is no justifiable means for petitioner to be cleared of “testifying falsely and evasively” because he had always claimed to be telling the truth.
Gordon “in fact, publicly announced that petitioner’s (Ong) further testimony is no longer needed in the investigation,” according to Topacio.
“He (Gordon) was quoted as saying I don’t need you, Mr. Ong, you’re gonna need help,” Topacio said. “If the Committee is convinced that petitioner is guilty of false testimony, there is nothing that will prevent them from filing the appropriate cases against him (Ong) before the prosecutors and the courts.”
Apart from pressing the Supreme Court to issue a status quo order, Topacio stated that the tribunal must rule on whether the Senate’s act of putting Ong in its custody constitutes a “arrest” or “detention”.
“The distinction is not simply a matter of semantics. It is substantial, not conceptual, for it affect the fundamental right to be free from unwarranted governmental restraint,” the petition said.
