Katherine Cassandra Ong, linked to a Porac, Pampanga Philippine offshore gaming operator (POGO), is asking the Supreme Court’s (SC) for help so she can invoke her right to remain silent as she faces legislative hearings.

Ong filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the High Court on Wednesday, September 11, asking the SC to issue a temporary restraining order against the legislative panels that are probing into POGOs. She was invited by the Senate and the House of Representatives in the ongoing probe into POGOs due to her ties to Lucky South 99 located in Porac.

In the petition, Ong wants the Senate and the House committees investigating POGOs to refrain “from doing any act and thing violative of the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner to remain silent, from incriminating herself, and to have the advice of counsel in every step of the proceedings.”

“Kami po ay dadalo out of respect to both chambers of Congress. Kami po ay pupunta roon ngunit i-invoke po namin ‘yong right to remain silent,” Topacio told reporters. “Once the right to remain silent is invoked ay no further questions should be made. Igalang po ‘yon.”

(We will attend the hearings out of respect to both chambers of Congress. We will attend but we will invoke the right to remain silent. Once the right to remain silent has been invoked, no further questions should be made. They should respect that.)

Just last Saturday, Topacio said Ong would rather go to jail than appear in legislative probes as she does not want to “be shamed” in public anymore. This opposes Topacio’s most recent remarks about Ong’s willingness to attend hearings.

There was a contempt and arrest order issued against Ong because she failed to attend the House hearings in the lower chamber in the last months. Ong was compelled to attend the inquiries after she was arrested in Indonesia, deported back to the Philippines, and put under House custody in August.

She was not as cooperative as other resource speakers, especially during the August 28 hearing, so lawmakers threatened her with another contempt charge for not answering queries. Lawmakers even scolded her lawyer, Topacio, for coaching her during the hearing. Come the next hearing on September 4, Ong was more cooperative, but did not finish the probe that day because she experienced dizziness due to low blood pressure and low sugar.

The House had to wheel her out of the inquiry. Ong is currently detained at the House for her contempt order.

Ong is Lucky South’s authorized representative and was the signatory in the POGO’s application for an Internet Gaming License with the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation in 2023. Ong is also one of the 2024 officers of Whirlwind Corporation, the real estate corporation that leased its compound to Lucky South.

Back in June, authorities said Lucky South 99’s POGO hubs were hotbeds for various illicit activities, including human trafficking, forced labor, and various scam activities. Ong now faces complaints for trafficking and money laundering.

Right to remain silent

Ong is not the first person facing legislative probes to seek the High Court’s help. Dismissed mayor Alice Guo, implicated in the Bamban, Tarlac POGO, also filed a petition with the SC in July to block the Senate’s invitation. Ong’s request to the High Court is based on the protections provided by the 1987 Constitution. But can she invoke this right at this time?

The following are collated information and arguments pertaining to the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination, and how they apply to legislative probes.

• Every person is protected by laws to avoid incriminating himself/herself by giving information that can be used against himself/herself. This is enshrined in Article III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
• After alleged trafficker and doomsday preacher Apollo Quiboloy filed a similar petition in the SC as he also faced a Senate probe, retired SC senior associate justice Antonio Carpio said a person may raise his/her right against self-incrimination and refuse an incriminating question only after a question is asked during a Senate inquiry.
• Carpio cited the Romero II v. Senate committee on labor, employment, and human resources case, where the SC quoted Sabio v. Gordon. In the said case, the SC said the right against self-incrimination may be invoked “only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them.”
• “The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoena, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation,” the decision added.
• The Rules of the Senate on self-incrimination are also clear: “No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or affirmation or answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked. His invocation of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty to give testimony.”

– Rappler.com