Guo’s rights and privilege

Guo’s rights and privilege | Daily Tribune

The total lack of parameters, benchmarks, even the departure from the Rules of the Senate itself have become the principal reason why senators miserably failed to uphold the letter and spirit of Senate Resolution 977. It changed gears to center its investigation on the identity or citizenship of Mayor Alice Leal Guo through a “forced upon and (mis)guided” autobiographical reconstruction as if it were the root of all evil instead of the alleged illegal activities of a licensed Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator or POGO hub thereat, the subject matter of the referenced resolution.

Rule LII (52) of the Rules of the Senate is followed by Senate Resolution 5 that delves on Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (p. 67). This 8-page resolution adopted since 9 August 2010 actually includes crucial sections deemed inviolable to the case of Guo, the relevant texts read, viz.:

“Sec. 14. Right to Counsel. (1) At every hearing, public or executive, every witness shall be accorded the right to have a counsel of his own choice; and (2) Except as provided in the Internal Rules of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the participation of counsel during the course of any hearing and while the witness is testifying shall be limited to advising said witness as to his legal rights. Counsel shall not be permitted to engage in oral argument with the Committee, but shall confine his activity to the area of legal advice to his client.

“Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. A witness can invoke his right against self-incrimination only when a question that tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is propounded to him. However, he may offer to answer any question in an executive session. 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.”

The viewing universe has seen, heard, and even gotten irritated by the manner by which the Senate inquiry proceeded along a stream of questions, not a few raised several times over, with a spin or tweak depending on whose turn it was. By and large, the questions senators asked carried pre-conceived beliefs, laced with bias and prejudice, and blowing bubbles in the minds of otherwise innocent minds.

At the most basic, it seems unsettling that senators did away with their own Rules or shelved them.

It’s likewise unfortunate that the poor subject being questioned despite having obliged to answer all questions within and beyond her personal knowledge had her credibility and integrity badly impugned.

There were other legal niceties denied Mayor Guo as earlier advanced by Sen. Francis Escudero, like the principle that “who alleges must prove the same.” For another, given that Guo has such documentary proofs (i.e. birth certificate, Philippine passport, certificate of candidacy) — all these enjoy the “presumption of regularity.”

It appears far within the competence of the Senate to peruse if documents may be otherwise fake, counterfeit, forged, tampered, or spurious — in the face of a strong indication that all these were secured from the proper issuing authorities. Civic leader Teresita Ang See cannot be faulted in describing the probe as a “zarzuela,” a case of Sinophobia, and an emerging anti-Chinese narrative peddled to an unknowing public.

The Senate should take inspiration from Johan Olsen’s “logic of appropriateness,” a perspective that sees human action as driven by rules of appropriate or exemplary behavior, organized into institutions. Apparently, all these were lacking as the manner of questioning was like squeezing more juice out of a tomato.

When this investigation comes to pass, it’s hoped that “the whole truth” will be scientifically extracted based on logic, evidence, and reality, with the puzzle solved, the myth demystified, fiction debunked.

Who knows an Alice Guo is “socially constructed” to find a bogeyman to justify the poor cause of rabid anti-POGO adherents to clamp down POGOs?