Finally, former president Rodrigo Duterte appeared before the Quad Committee last week after repeated invitations for him to be the resource person in the House inquiry in aid of legislation.
In previous hearings, the Quadcomm members, especially Abang Lingkod Partylist Representative Joseph Stepehen Paduano, manifested his frustrations in his comments about why Duterte did not attend the legislative inquiry after the celebration of the All Saints’ Day as promised by his counsel. He even labeled Duterte a coward for not facing the inquiry on his administration’s war on drugs.
The Quadcomm sent another invitation letter dated Nov. 11, 2024, to Duterte asking him to appear at the hearing on Nov. 13, 2024. This time, Duterte confirmed his attendance and in fact, informed the secretariat that he had already flown from Davao to Manila for the hearing. Unfortunately, the Quadcomm cancelled the hearing without providing any reason.
Although, the Quadcomm held a press conference to explain their reason after mixed comments from netizens on social media, they eventually decided to proceed with the hearing. The hearing lasted for 13 hours, with congressmen grilling Duterte one after another from 11 o’clock in the morning until almost midnight. For Duterte’s loyalists, the issues raised were rehashed, and many of the questions were repetitive, with one congressman asking the same questions as another. But for his detractors, the questions seemed acceptable.
At one point during the congressional inquiry, the Quadcomm allowed another resource person, Col. Eduardo Asierto, to testify online. He began making serious allegations against the former president. However, the latter seasonably objected, questioning why Col. Asierto was allowed to testify online when he was about to make serious allegations. It was unfair to the individual subject of these allegations, who would not have the opportunity to face his accuser.
Cong. Robert Barbers explained that this was allowed according to their rules. The Quadcomm was determined to proceed with Col. Asierto’s online testimony despite the objection. However, technical glitches interrupted the supposed uninterrupted testimony of the accuser.
For the Quadcom and Duterte’s detractors, requiring Duterte to appear personally before the committee while allowing Col. Asierto to join only online may seem acceptable. However, for Duterte’s loyalists and those with a sense of fairness, the following questions are inevitable: Why did the Quadcomm allow a resource person, Col. Asierto, to make accusations online? If this is permitted by their rules, why was the same privilege not extended to the former president? If Col. Asierto’s reason for testifying online is his security, does it imply that the current administration cannot guaranty his safety? Does the Quadcomm fail to recognize the riskier security for Duterte being a former president?
Why did the Quadcomm fail to show consideration for Duterte, a senior citizen, having to fly from Davao to Manila? Why did they impose all the obstacles on the elderly Duterte while providing full support to the physically able, dismissed police officer Col. Asierto?
If the Quadcomm truly wanted to know the truth, why did they not require Col. Asierto to be physically present so they could observe his demeanor? Why was the Quadcomm not interested in observing if Col. Asierto could face Duterte directly, with eye-to-eye contact, to determine whether he was telling the truth or just fabricating a story?
Given this, can the Quadcomm blame the people if they suspect that the proceedings were unfair and biased against the former president?