Tri Comm Issues Subpoenas To ‘No-Show’ Vloggers, Influencers

The House Tri Committee (Tri-Comm) has issued subpoenas to social media influencers and vloggers who failed to attend congressional hearings despite receiving show cause orders, with lawmakers warning that continued defiance could lead to legal consequences and that congressional inquiries must be respected.

“We have received a copy of several letters coming from resource persons that was issued the show cause order during the Feb. 4 hearing,” Abang Lingkod Rep. Joseph Stephen “Caraps” Paduano stated.

He noted that most of these influencers provided similar justifications for their absence, citing their petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court as their reason for non-compliance.

Paduano read aloud the names of those who failed to attend, including Trixie Cruz-Angeles, Krizette Laureta Chu, Sass Rogando Sasot,
Mark Anthony Lopez, Lorraine Marie Badoy-Partosa, Jeffrey Almendras Celiz (Eric Celiz), Dr. Richard Mata, Ethel Pineda Garcia, Joie De Vivre (Elizabeth Joi Cruz), Aaron Peña, and Mary Jean Reyes.

The subpoena against Suzanne Batalla was later put on hold after she submitted a medical certificate explaining her absence.

Paduano clarified that none of them had been cited for contempt, but emphasized that the committee must now escalate its actions.

“Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully move that we issue a subpoena ad testificandum for all those mentioned names that has officially received a copy of such show cause order?” Paduano moved.

Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop, sitting as chair of the Tri Comm hearing, quickly affirmed the motion.

“There’s a motion to issue subpoena to all those mentioned by the Honorable Paduano for not attending and answering the show cause order issued by the three committees. Duly seconded. Do I hear any objection from the members? Hearing none, the motion is carried,” Acop ruled.

Paduano said that Cruz-Angeles, who had publicly questioned the legitimacy of the congressional inquiry, was issued a show cause order due to her actions against the hearing.

“Firstly, the joint committee issued the show cause order against Attorney Angeles not because of her non-attendance… but because of the content of the communication that she submitted before this committee, which directly challenges our jurisdiction to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation,” he explained.

Paduano reminded Angeles that, as a lawyer, she is obligated to respect the Constitution, particularly the provision granting Congress the power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation.

“We would like to remind Attorney Angeles that as an officer of the court and a member of the legal profession, she’s bound to respect and abide by the Constitution,” he said.

He further announced that the committee’s legal department is considering filing a disbarment case against Angeles for her repeated violations of legal ethics.

“The Joint Committee directed the Legal Department to study and consider filing possible disbarment case against Attorney Angeles because we believe that an officer of the court must conduct herself as a true advocate of law rather than being the one directly promoting its defiance,” Paduano revealed.

According to records, Angeles had previously been suspended twice by the Supreme Court – first in 2016, when she was suspended for three years for allegedly neglecting a client’s case despite receiving legal fees, and again in 2023, when she was suspended for six months for purportedly using abusive language in a legal pleading.

Paduano also cited Supreme Court jurisprudence that legislative investigations should not be halted simply because a pending court case exists.

“The mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before a court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation,” he said, citing the Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate case.

He also referenced the Arnold Nazareno vs. Nery Sinig case, which distinguished legislative inquiries from court proceedings.

“Legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has different purposes,” he explained.

“On the other hand, inquiries in aid of legislation are undertaken as tools to enable the legislative body to gather information and legislate wisely and effectively.”

As a final directive, Paduano moved for the reissuance of unserved show cause orders.

“For those all-unserved show cause orders coming from this committee last February 4 hearing, I respectfully move that those unserved show cause orders be issued again and that the SAA should coordinate with the Philippine National Police to properly serve such show cause orders,” he said.

The Tri Comm granted the motion.* (PR)