Drain the swamp
The accused individuals participating in the inquiries render the proceedings self-serving rather than independent.
Text size
The accused individuals participating in the inquiries render the proceedings self-serving rather than independent.
The inquiries into the flood control scandal lack credibility because ethics and conflicts of interest are at play, as some of those accused of partaking in the illicit gains are the very ones conducting the probes.
As the probes entered the phase where the evidence pointed to “bigger players,” as Senator Ping Lacson put it, the senators and House members implicated should have recused themselves from the hearings if they were not barred from them.
The witnesses are either intimidated or are being ridiculously forced to issue statements exonerating the legislators. The “safe ka na” quip of Senator Rodante Marcoleta to Senator Jinggoy Estrada has become a running joke with the public regarding it as legislators covering for each other.
Under the Senate’s Code of Conduct and the House Rules, members must avoid the “appearance of impropriety” and disclose potential biases. Implicated lawmakers who are both investigators and suspects violate principles of due process.
Senate Blue Ribbon committee rules allow the panel to exclude members with a “personal interest” to ensure credibility. Similarly, House committees can vote on recusals.
Witnesses like the Discaya couple and Brice Hernandez have expressed fears for their safety, citing intimidation from biased questioners. Hernandez specifically requested House protection from Senate custody, fearing a reprisal from the senators he implicated.
The accused legislators participating in the inquiries render the proceedings self-serving rather than independent.
The recently formed Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) provides an alternative venue for the investigation, but the congressional hearings continue with the participation of the conflicted lawmakers.
The hearings have become fishing expeditions for statements that could be used in their defense when their improprieties reach the courts. A senator, for instance, aggressively questioned one of the contractors invited as a witness on her wealth, leading her on until he asked her to deny their link.
Public pressure has proven effective in forcing the legislators to abide by their own guidelines on the conduct of the congressional probes.
In the Senate hearings on the 2013 pork barrel scam, civic groups called for the recusal of the implicated senators who continued to participate until their court cases progressed.
Recusal is essential as the legislators suspected of being involved in the P545-billion flood control outrage have the opportunity to steer the hearings to where they could clear their names.
The best action the legislature can take is to stop the hearings and open the way for the ICI to conduct the probe while sharing the data accumulated from their proceedings.
The implicated legislators who, based on the recent count, will number about 10 in the Senate and 13 in the House should then be asked not only to refrain from the congressional processes involving the scandal but to voluntarily take a leave of absence while the ICI conducts its work.
The leadership of both chambers are vested under the Constitution with disciplinary powers over their respective members to safeguard legislative independence.
A two-thirds vote, or 16 of 24 senators and 207 of 310 House members, is needed for suspensions, which are capped at 60 days to balance accountability with the protection of the elected officials’ mandates.
If the process is followed to the letter, the Senate and the House may find themselves without a majority, making it nearly impossible to pass laws.
The lesser evil is to leave everything in the hands of the ICI.
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
