In Congress we trust (2)

Some congressmen and senators belittle lawyers, thinking they can do a better job at ferreting out the truth. In fact, some even take pride in their ability to cross-examine the witnesses, even scolding lawyers who assist the latter in the process.

Speaking in broken English, Congressman Dan Fernandez once chastised a witness for conferring with her counsel, reminding her that lawyers are like leeches feeding off hapless individuals. Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, meanwhile, have been routinely badgering resource persons by asking questions that are obviously argumentative, rude and repetitive.

While I do not question the power of Congress to conduct investigations, something which should be encouraged, I cannot help but lament the fact that both houses lack sufficient rules to protect the rights of their invited resource persons, who seem to be always on the defensive given the barrage of unsubstantiated accusations thrown at them.

In the courtroom, judges, lawyers and even witnesses are guided by certain rules of procedure that are meant to protect the rights of individuals and remove any form of biases that may affect the decisions rendered.

For example, even if a judge unfairly favors a party, he cannot simply consider the pieces of evidence by him unless they are admissible. If it’s an object evidence, like some document or video, he cannot just use it unless it is given testimonial support. This means the person, who took the video and was privy about its contents and could authenticate it, should be presented so said footage becomes admissible. Otherwise, the same should not have any bearing on the proceeding.

In Congress, this is not the case. Any senator or congressman can confront a witness by presenting a video in his possession without authenticating or presenting the person who took it. He can then proceed to accusing said person of lying and threatening to cite in him in contempt unless he tells the truth, which is to admit what the members of the committee want him to.

In addition, he can base his accusation on mere conjectures, conclusions and hearsay. He can present fabricated evidence if he wants to in the guise of supposedly testing the credibility of a witness albeit the basis thereof is not credible in itself. He can use rumors as tools or even conspiracy theories if convenient. He can even lash out at a witness so he’d subsequently cave in and give in to his demands.

He can do as he pleases and nobody can interpose objections to his queries even if they are irrelevant, dumb and stupid. In any congressional hearing, he ironically wears several hats, acting as a judge, prosecutor and witness at the same time.

This is why you cannot blame a resource person for refusing to appear and testify. If the members of the committee want to crucify him, he cannot do anything about it. Presumption of innocence which in many jurisdictions is considered a legal right is blatantly abandoned and ignored.

Why? Because as legislators put it, they are merely doing this exercise in aid of legislation which is very far from the truth. In reality, it is more like political prosecution if not outright persecution.

If only there are appropriate rules of procedure, perhaps abuses in these congressional hearings might have been minimized, if not avoided. To be honest, it is the lack of these rules that makes it possible for them to politicize the process and serve their vested interests. More importantly, it is also the lack of these rules that makes it possible for dumb and stupid members of congress to feel superior and look down on others.

I remember being once invited in Congress as a resource person. Since I was the only one opposed to the measure, the presiding officer who next year is running for a mayoralty seat turned off my microphone. I’m just glad Senator Richard Gordon wasn’t there to support him. Why? Because he’s a Dick!