In Congress, we shouldn’t trust

Our congressmen and senators are without a doubt abusive. But before I elaborate on this, let me discuss the presuppositions.

The power of Congress under the Constitution is plenary in scope. This means it has complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations. If it wants to investigate alleged anomalies or wrongdoings, it can do so swiftly and should not be hampered by uncooperative resource persons and witnesses.

In fact, concomitant to this, it has the power to cite in contempt those who deliberately refuse to participate in congressional hearings or decline to answer queries. However, this power is not applicable if a witness refuses to answer because the question could potentially implicate them criminally. In this regard, they can invoke their right against self-incrimination.

At any rate, to compel participation, both houses can detain non-cooperative individuals until they relent and decide to cooperate.

According to the Supreme Court, this legislative power to investigate has three limitations. First, the inquiry must be in “aid of legislation.” Second, it must be conducted in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. And third, the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries must be respected. As regards contempt, where there is a factual basis for it, the resource person’s detention should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.

To be honest, our jurisprudence has carefully struck a balance between recognizing this plenary power of Congress and the need to protect the rights of resource persons who testify under oath in their inquiries.

Sadly, our senators and congressmen abuse their power, and as a result, they make a mockery of the investigative process. The problem lies in the fact that they use this privilege to politically harass their opponents rather than come up with meaningful measures to address the issues, as they should.

Historically, this has always been their behavior. Of the many controversial issues they have probed, only a handful have resulted in significant laws. Why? Because their purpose is merely to exact vengeance or, at best, weaken their political rivals and enemies.

The fact that they are selective in their investigations is proof of this. If they were serious about addressing corruption, they could have, for instance, investigated all those involved in the improper use of government funds — which would mean almost everyone in government. That they focused only on Vice President Sara Duterte indicates political motivation. I am not saying, though, that the allegations against her should not be investigated. However, what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, so to speak.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t help that we have lawmakers who are ignorant. In many of the televised congressional hearings I’ve seen, I always hear a senator or a congressman threaten a witness with contempt because they are presumed to be lying.

This doesn’t make sense. The remedy for lying is not to cite them in contempt but to sue them for perjury, since they are under oath. Why? Because whether or not a person is lying is a judicial prerogative. Only the court can determine the truth, as it is evidentiary in nature. Besides, if lying were grounds for contempt, even the senators and congressmen should be cited and detained because most of them are pathological liars too.

The other day, Congressman Dan Fernandez mocked a witness who said she’d rather address the issue in court instead of responding to their queries. Truth be told, this is understandable. In a judicial proceeding, at least, there are rules of procedure designed to weigh the evidence, ferret out the truth, and accord a person their right to due process. In Congress, rules are blatantly abandoned as resource persons are harassed like convicted criminals.

These lawmakers are not only rude but blatantly abusive. In fact, I even saw Senator Joel Villanueva suggest that lawyers assisting the witnesses should be cited in contempt as well. This is just plain stupid. Obviously, he doesn’t understand what lawyers do and is not knowledgeable of the law and our legal system. But this is expected, considering he won not on the strength of his qualifications but because he is the son of an influential evangelist.

At some point, someone should file a case in court to prevent these abuses. Again, I am not saying they should not investigate. They should, and they should make erring public officials the subject of their investigations. However, they should be held liable too for their behavior and for the sheer ignorance displayed by some of them.