MANILA, Philippines - Accusations hurled by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office against Catholic bishops boomeranged on the agency on Wednesday after members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee quizzed the PCSO chief on why the prelates were accused of receiving Pajero cars when not one of them acquired the said luxury sport utility vehicle manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors using PCSO money.
After the bishops from Northern Luzon and Mindanao defended the acquisition and use of vehicles for secular activities such as medical missions and feeding programs in the hinterlands, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada grilled PCSO chairperson Margarita Juico on the source of the reports about the "Pajero bishops."
"Mrs. Juico, who came out with that false report that the bishops were receiving Pajeros? Who came out with the word Pajero? I presumed all the bishops did not receive any Pajero, it was four-by-four," said Estrada.
Booed
At least twice, Juico was booed by the audience from the Senate gallery after she failed to fully explain who from the PCSO claimed that the bishops acquired Pajero cars.
"Your honor at that time, I think the board did not have a copy yet of which vehicles were sent out. All we had was the COA (Commission on Audit) report," said Juico.
"You mean to say Mrs. Juico, that the present PCSO board invented that name Pajero just to put the bishops in bad light?" said Estrada.
"No, we never said Pajero. We were given this finding from COA that five vehicles costing P6.9 million granted to the Catholic Church were charged to the charity fund. The name Pajero did not come from us. It came about when somebody said it was Pajero," replied Juico.
Asked again by the senator who that somebody was, Juico replied: "I don't know."
Then Estrada read portions of several news reports quoting Juico as saying that the bishops received Pajero units from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo a few months before she stepped down from office.
Juico defended herself and said that, "I don't recall saying Pajeros," adding that "I think I have corrected that many times because it was said that I said that."
Estrada told the PCSO chairman that it was unfair for the prelates to be lumped as the Pajero bishops. "Eh hindi naman talaga mga luxury vehicles ang tinatanggap nitong ating mga bishops, kawawa naman sila [The bishops did not receive luxury vehicles, I take pity on them.]
Shamed
Earlier in the hearing, senators Vicente Sotto III and Panfilo Lacson likewise expressed sympathy for the bishops.
"Senator Lacson and I could not help but discuss something that has been mentioned a number of times," said Sotto pertaining to the repeated statements of the bishops since last week that they would return all the vehicles they had acquired using PCSO money.
"If I can object to the decision of the bishops in returning the vehicles, I would. Parang pilay-pilay na sila ngayon pagkatapos n'on, para isauli ang mga binigay na 'yon. Eh ginagamit ng mabuti, kailangan. Isasauli dahil napahiya, napahiya dahil may nagheadline ng Pajero bishops. Wala naman palang Pajero. I think we should take a second look at this decision to return the vehicles. If I were the PCSO, I will not accept it," said Sotto.
[If I can object to the decision of the bishops in returning the vehicles, I would. They're like crippled now after this for them to return what was given to them. They used the vehicles well, for necessity. They are returning them because they were shamed by the headlines about the Pajero bishops. But there were no Pajeros. I think we should take a second look at this decision to return the vehicles. If I were the PCSO, I will not accept it.]
The seven bishops acquired the following vehicles using funds from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office: secondhand Nissan Pathfinder, Mitsubishi Strada, Toyota Grand Hiace, Mitsubushi Strada pickup, Toyota Hiace Grandia, Mitsubishi Montero, and Isuzu Crosswind.
More than careless
At the end of the hearing, more senators took up the cudgels for the beleaguered bishops.
Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile thought that PCSO officials were more than careless in their accusations.
"Palagay ko hindi lang careless...Ang hirap, hindi 'yung dokumento ang pinagbasehan kundi yung gustong sabihin ng mga tao. Nagugulo ang publiko, di lumalabas ang katotohanan," Enrile told reporters after the hearing.
[I think they were more than careless...The problem was that the allegations were not based on the documents but on what people want to say. The public is being confused, the truth is not coming out.]
"I think they (bishops) were unfairly accused of receiving expensive vehicles, which was rather incorrect. The matter was clarified already...We have the head of the PCSO, they said they did not say Pajero, I don't know how true that is," added Enrile.
Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, the chairman of the committee, also exonerated the bishops.
"Walang mali sa paggamit nila ng sasakyan. Lahat ay nagsabi na ginamit nila sa sekular, hindi for religious purpose [There was nothing wrong in how they utilized the vehicles. All of them said these were used for secular activities not for religious purpose]," said Guingona.
Early ally
Even before the inquiry into the PCSO fund scandal resumed on Wednesday, the bishops found an early ally in Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.
In a privilege speech before the hearing, the senator dismissed the 2009 COA report, which said that the purchase of the vehicles was a violation of the constitutional provision that no public money should be appropriated directly or indirectly for the use of any church.
(Click her to read the full text of Sen. Santiago's speech)
"I humbly submit that the COA report is wrong, and that there was no constitutional violation. Under the Constitution, the power of the COA is to audit government funds, not to settle questions of constitutional law," the senator said.
"That power is granted only to the Supreme Court. COA should have recommended that the constitutional issue should be raised with the Department of Justice, which is the official legal adviser of the executive branch of the government," Santiago added.
Jurisprudence
Citing the 1937 case of Aglipay v. Ruiz as jurisprudence on whether there was Constitutional violation in the use of public money for religious purposes, Santiago said that the high court ruled that there was no violation in the case.
The case involved the post office's issuance of postage stamps commemorating an international eucharistic congress of the Catholic church.
"It is obvious that while the issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be inseparably linked with an event of a religious character, the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Roman Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the Government," said Santiago.
"We are of the opinion that the government should not be embarrassed in its activities simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordination to mere incidental results not contemplated," she added.
