"I don’t even want to talk about Sabio. He is too insignificant in the scheme of things to be worth any comment from the Senate President," Drilon said.

Sabio caught the ire of Drilon and Senators Edgardo J. Angara, Joker Arroyo, and Juan Ponce Enrile when he charged that Drilon, Angara, and Enrile were defendants in some of the ill-gotten wealth cases and answering their questions in last Monday’s public hearing at the Senate session hall on the PCGG budget "would prejudice the PCGG’s mandate to go after ill-gotten wealth."

As a result, Enrile threatened to give the PCGG a zero budget for 2006, not the R67 million Sabio was asking the Senate to approve.

"His statements are highly irresponsible and totally uncalled for. As a lawyer and PCGG chairman, Sabio should have known or should have acquainted himself, at the very least, with the various court decisions on the matter," Angara said.

"The truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court (SC), in a decision promulgated in 1996, has ordered to drop, with finality, my inclusion as a party-defendant in the case," Angara said.

The Supreme Court, according to Angara, has declared that the "PCGG has no valid cause of action against petitioners Edgardo Angara and his partners at ACCRA Law Office as they were being prosecuted solely on the basis of activities and services performed by them in the course of their duties as lawyers."

Sen. Arroyo added: "Sabio’s braggadocio and arrogance is surprising. It betrays the support of strong and unseen backers and principals who egg him on even if it escalates into a major scandal for this administration — or the loss of the PCGG budget."

"Mr. Sabio has the impertinence and the imprudence, as PCGG chairman, to be the current chairman, vice chairman, or OIC (officer-in-charge) of 29 PCGGsequestered corporations. Fourteen of these are holding CIIF (Coconut Investment Industry Fund) companies which are involved in the claims against Danding Cojuangco. And Sabio feigns there is no conflict of interest," Arroyo stressed.

Enrile demanded the firing of Sabio before he would ask his colleagues in the 23-member Senate to give PCCG its proposed 2006 R67-million budget.

"Sabio must be fired for the budget of the PCGG to be passed. I will not agree to a R1 (a year) budget. I will go for a zero budget for the PCGG," Enrile said.

In refusing to answer, Sabio invoked a provision of Executive Order (EO) No. 1 issued in 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino.

Sabio later explained that Sen. Arroyo should have known about the order since it was the senator himself who drafted it.

Sabio also said answering the senators’ questions would prejudice the mandate of PCGG which is to go after ill-gotten wealth, particularly those amassed during the Marcos regime.

He cited Section 4 of EO 1 which states that "no member or staff of the commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial legislative or administrative proceedings concerning matters within its official cognizance." The EO was crafted by Sen. Arroyo himself when he was the Executive Secretary of then President Aquino, he added.

"Sabio misrepresents, misleads, and obfuscates the import of that provision. That provision was incorporated to help the PCGG carry out its work unhampered by investigations. It was not designed to give advance immunity for PCGG for anything they do, for wrongdoing, PCGG cannot be a class by itself, free from investigation," Sen. Arroyo said.

Sen. Arroyo said the provision invoked by Sabio which no other PCCG chairperson in the past has raised as a shield cannot prevail over the superior Bill of Rights provision "on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern should be recognized."

"The question is not whether the PCGG can enter into a compromise agreement, but at what level in the government hierarchy is the compromise being entered into: Is it at the level of Mr. Sabio or is it at the level of the President?" Sen. Arroyo asked.

He said the SC has already ruled that the sequestered San Miguel shares are impressed with a public character, thereby giving the government already the upper hand.

"It is the party with a weak hand that seeks a compromise, not the party with a strong hand, like the government in the present case, that should seek a settlement. There lies Sabio’s mystery. The coco levy case is the biggest ever ill-gotten wealth so far. And Mr. Sabio refuses to answer who would decide on the R84- billion settlement, whether he or the President, an amount that approximates the EVAT added revenue which will torment the people," he added.

Asked what could be the real reason for Sabio’s silence on the Cojuangco case, Enrile said the provision of EO 1 that Sabio invoked "is actually a passport to larceny."

"It is a license to thievery. If you cannot be inquired into the performance of the PCGG, what does it mean? They can loot the corporations as they have done without any accountability?" Enrile asked.

On Sabio’s statement that he has a pending case related to the ill-gotten wealth issue, Enrile said the PCGG can proceed with the case which has been pending for the past 20 years.

Asked whether the Sabio position was meant to divert the coconut compromise issue, Enrile said: "It’s a silly statement from a silly person." (Mario B. Casayuran)