E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
The blue ribbon sleeps
Sunday, 05 25, 2003
When the Senate adopted on July 18, 1950 the resolution creating the committee on special investigations, later renamed committee on accountability of public officers and investigations, and now more popularly known as the blue ribbon, the Senate empowered the committee “to investigate any (other) matter of public interest which may be brought to the attention of the committee by any member thereof of any senator.” Since then, the blue ribbon has nurtured a rich tradition of being at the forefront in the sustained quest for an honest and efficient government through the elimination of all forms of graft, corruption, criminal extravagance and waste. In recent memory, the Senate prided itself in having at its helm fearless senators like Ernesto Maceda, Wigberto Tañada and Aquilino Pimentel, who never wavered and certainly would not serve as apologist by force of habit to the mighty and the powerful. But not anymore.
The blue ribbon now sleeps the sleep of the senile, and its chairman would rather recuse the committee from conducting investigations on a matter referred to it by the senators for reasons a non-lawyer senator like Vicente Sotto labels as the height of arrogance.
Observers say the chairman of this most powerful committee in the Congress is nor doing his job properly. The Senate records bear this out: the committee was convened only 12 times during the first regular session of the 12th Congress, compared to the 87 hearings conducted by the blue ribbon under Pimentel during the first regular session of the 11th Congress alone; out of the 67 committee reports submitted by all Senate committees as of the end of the first regular session of the 12th Congress, the blue ribbon had none.
What is most unfortunate for now is the refusal of the chairman of the blue ribbon to investigate the allegation of extortion in high places related to the Piatco contracts as exposed by Sen. Edgardo Angara in a privilege speech. From its reason for being alone as articulated by Senator Justiniano Montano years ago, the blue ribbon would be the natural choice to investigate, as in fact the Senate did decide. But here comes the chairman refusing to conduct any investigation, on the ground that allegedly, the evidence likely to be presented in the investigation is inadmissible.
That is not how the blue ribbon should handle the speech of Angara. There is at the outset a clear allegation of a wrongdoing in that speech. Whatever may be the type of evidence that will be presented, it is not proper to say for now that it is inadmissible. Or, even if it is inadmissible it would not suffice to scuttle altogether the investigation. What if there is other evidence that will be presented?
There have been many investigations conducted by the blue ribbon that were precipitated by a newspaper account of a wrongdoing – even if this was hearsay – that a senator delivered in a privilege speech. What makes the Angara speech any different now that the blue ribbon chairman would not even dare to handle it? It has always happened that investigations were prompted by even the slightest allegation of a wrongdoing from whatever source delivered in a privilege speech. Which is as it should be, since that is exactly what the subsequent investigation will look into, that is, if there is basis for the allegation of wrongdoing. It is not for the chairman to prejudge the substance and admissibility of the evidence that is waiting to be presented. Unless the committee proceeds to investigate, then it will never find out the truth.
That the blue ribbon has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Angara’s speech is very clear. Certainly, alleged extortion in high places is a matter of public interest that must be investigated. There is not even a jurisdictional challenge posed by anyone. It must now proceed to exercise that jurisdiction.
The admissibility of the evidence should be another matter, and should not be the reason not to exercise jurisdiction. The committee can very well exclude evidence at the proper time during the investigation, when it is presented, and for the right and legal reasons. Once evidence is presented, and it is decided by the committee to be inadmissible, it being the subject of an illegal wiretap, for example, then not even a word uttered in that wiretap, will ever see print. If what is presented is hearsay evidence, then by all means exclude it. But for as along as evidence lies in wait to be presented, as Sotto himself now has assured there is, to sustain an investigation, then the committee must be convened to exercise its jurisdiction.
An allegation of a wrongdoing, which is the subject of a privilege speech, should not be dismissed outright on one senator’s initial judgment that the evidence to be presented is not admissible anyway. That is an indictment of the senator making the privilege speech. The Senate rules, and not only as a matter of courtesy to a colleague, require the committee to proceed to investigate.
Did not several Senate committees, the blue ribbon included, proceed to investigate another senator upon the initial allegations of a witness who turned out to be a perjured one? And, did not those same committees allow the presentation of unconfirmed evidence of multi-million-dollar accounts attributed to a senator in a newspaper account, which evidence turned out to have come from unintelligent sources?
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment