THE prosecution is incorrect in claiming that background or other broad questions cannot be responded to by an assertion of a privilege, attorney Keith Chambers said in a supplemental brief in support of his motion to dismiss the information against his client, Shayne Villanueva.
Villanueva was charged by the Office of the Attorney General with contempt of Legislature after he invoked his Fifth Amendment right during an investigatory hearing conducted by a House special committee.
Chambers said that, according to Fifth Amendment law, the privilege can be asserted “wherever the answer might tend to subject one to criminal responsibility.”
During a court hearing on July 8, 2024, Chambers said Assistant Attorney General James Robert Kingman argued that the Fifth Amendment protection should not apply to “general background questions.”
The OAG said Villanueva failed to answer the following questions asked by Rep. BJ Attao:
• “Can you please tell us a little bit about your post-secondary educational background?”
• “Do you have a degree or any certification in marketing or advertising?”
Chambers said the OAG’s argument would create “an unworkable and draconian situation.” It would “force individuals asked an incriminating so-called background question to determine whether the question is a background question and to choose whether they wish to answer the question, thereby incriminating themselves with their answer, or assert the Privilege, thereby incriminating themselves with contempt. This is what the Fifth Amendment was designed to avoid.”
The days of the infamous “Star Chamber” are long over, he added, referring to a body associated with arbitrary and secretive proceedings, often used to suppress dissent and punish political adversaries.
“The Commonwealth Legislature and the Office of the Attorney General do indeed have a plethora of authority to investigate,” Chambers said. “However, such authority does not include the right to compel a witness to testify against himself.”
“Therefore,” he added, “assuming all of the facts in the Information are true, it is clear here that from the implications of the questions asked, in the setting in which they were asked, that a responsive answer to the questions and an explanation of why they could not be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.”
“Therefore,” Chambers said, “the Court should find as a matter of law that Mr. Villanueva had the right to assert the Privilege to the questions that are being charged and dismiss the Information.”
Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-Gov. Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help implement the BOOST program in 2022.
BOOST stands for “Building Optimism, Opportunities and Stability Together,” a $17 million federally funded program.
On March 5, 2024, Villanueva appeared before the House Special Committee on Federal Assistance & Disaster-Related Funding and invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked questions about BOOST.
After the committee found him in contempt, Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez transmitted to Attorney General Edward Manibusan a “certification of statement of contempt” pertaining to Villanueva.
On March 22, 2024, Villanueva self-surrendered at the Department of Corrections after an arrest warrant was issued against him for contempt. He posted a $1,000 bail for his release.
During an arraignment on April 2, 2024, Villanueva pled not guilty to the charge of contempt of Legislature.
Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has placed under advisement the motion to dismiss the contempt case against Villanueva.
Judge Naraja also granted the government’s request to change the date of Villanueva’s bench trial.
Villanueva’s trial was previously set for Sept. 24, 2024, but after hearing from the parties, Judge Naraja scheduled it for Nov. 6-8, 2024.
