Golez’ misreading

I really don’t know how many privilege speeches that Bácolod Congressman Anthony Golez has delivered and on what matters since I had not read any before, but it is good he has put on the Congressional Record his opposition to the commemoration of the Charter Day of Bácolod on June 18.

I had hoped that he could have stood in the Halls of the House of Representatives to demand an explanation from the Department of Public Works and highways or to call for an inquiry on what happened to the money that was supposed to have been budgeted for the highway from Tangub to Suma-ag and the boundary of the city with Bago.

But it seems his priority lies in this obsession to prevent the commemoration of the Charter Day on June 18. Why he is obsessed can be another future column.

Fortunately I got a copy of the transcript of his privilege speech on May 8 – the marvel of modern technology.

I am amused that Golez could be misreading the documents or perhaps he is reading what is not there. From a medical point of view, what is that? From a political point of view, there is plenty. But let us go to the subject of this column.

In his speech, Golez castigated the Deputy Secretar y General of the House for certifying supposedly on April 25, 2012 “that there is no bill that seeks to amend Republic Act No. 7724 which mandates that the celebration of Bacolod City Charter Day must be held every October.”

For this supposed act, Golez wants a congressional inquiry.

Golez claims that the certification was made to “appear as an act of Congress saying that there is already a law that Bacolod City Charter Day is on June 18, but was there a law passed? The problem is that the certification referred to by the mayor, the act of Congress being referred to was a mere issuance of a deputy secretary general and there was no law passed repealing Republic Act No. 7724.”

The mayor referred to is naturally Evelio Leonardia.

Golez asked “Who is this Deputy Secretary General? It is no other than Deputy Secretary General for Administrative Department Ricardo Ramon Roque.”

Now we or he got a problem.

I have never heard or read, or was there any information during the deliberation in the Sanggunian that Roque wrote such a certification on April 25, 2012.

What is on record is that Roque wrote on June 20, 2011 “a certified true copy of Commonwealth Act No. 326.” Except for his greetings and closing notes as usual in letters and his signature, there is nothing more. The copy of Act 326 was certified to by the Archives and Museum Management Service of the House of Representatives.

What Golez is referring to in his speech but attributed to Roque was a “certification by the Deputy Secretary General for Legislative Operations dated April 25, 2012 (where) it was stated that there is even no bill that seeks to amend Republic Act No. 7724, the law that mandates that the celebration of Bacolod Charter Day must be held every October.” I shall deal with this later on.

How then can the letter of Roque on June 20, 2011 which was merely a covering letter certifying that the attached copy of Act 326 is a true copy be considered by Golez as repealing a law?

Golez intoned “a law cannot be repealed by a deputy secretary general of the Congress.” Is this not stretching the imagination too far?

Roque merely furnished a true copy of the law and a little intelligence tells us that that action cannot be considered an act of Congress much less repealing a law. How Golez can read it that way is a wonder, but that can be explained.

That the City government acted on the true copy is not because Roque said so but because reading the document convinced them that the law creating Bacolod as a city was signed and approved on June 18. Nothing disputes that.

In fact, last year when this certification came out of the press, Golez called me and said that he too had a copy of the certification. Now why didn’t he act and deliver a privilege speech and castigate Roque for that? Did he at the time consider Roque’s action as a violation of law as he now declares?

The privilege speech is a curious document with several claims that challenges students of logic.

There now appears to be two documents, one from Roque of June 20, 2011 of which I have a copy and another of April 25, 2012 which I have no copy is also from a Deputy Secretary General for Legislative Operations.

Which document is Golez referring to in his tirade? I shall continue tomorrow on the confusion.*

back to top