When somebody testifies in court, you wouldn’t know if he’s lying unless you ask probing questions during cross-examination. You look for major inconsistencies or claims contrary to human experience. Sometimes, you may even want to dig deep into his background and perhaps even his motivation in order to ferret out the truth.

In the absence of objects as pieces of evidence, you scrutinize every allegation the witness makes because, compared to physical documents that speak for themselves, claims can be fabricated easily.

This is why I sometimes question the wisdom of having congressional inquiries on controversial issues. Albeit supposedly in aid of legislation, they are usually weaponized for political gains. 

Since rules on admissible evidence are not technically applicable, the senators allow the presentation of inadmissible or irrelevant evidence for as long as it suits the narratives they peddle. They can either dismiss a witness as incompetent or accept his testimony as gospel truth without going through a painstaking vetting process.

Look at the case of Orly Guteza. Among the witnesses, he is the only one not criminally in cahoots. Yet, his credibility was outright doubted simply because his testimony did not fit their political agenda. 

Meanwhile, every statement Engr. Alcantara makes is accepted hook, line and sinker. Why? Because for these senators, it is not about addressing corruption but about advancing their vested interests or those they serve.

Of course, it would have been different if Sen. Rodante Marcoleta were still running the show. Possibly, those implicated would have been names different from those currently the subject of DoJ’s build-up case initiatives. 

Perhaps the Discayas would have been state witnesses by now. Certainly, his plan, given his political affiliation, is different from that of the majority.

Anyway, the other problem with politicizing legislative work is that it also brings about misplaced public expectations. For instance, those so far incriminated are expected to be sent to jail and punished. Otherwise, people would think there is a travesty of justice. 

In reality, though, the evidence against some of them is actually inadmissible at best or weak at worst. At some point, once cases against them go the distance, some may potentially be dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence. As a result, people would be frustrated because the senators have made it seem like the conviction of everyone inculpated is guaranteed.

Probably, it’s high time we let the Independent Commission for Infrastructure do its thing. Or even better, let the DoJ file cases left and right based on available pieces of evidence.