E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Questions, and more questions
Sunday, 10 06, 2002
The Question Hour is a feature of the parliamentary system such as the one found in Great Britain, where the ministers are asked certain questions that relate to public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible.
In our jurisdiction, where the presidential system prevails, the Question Hour takes a different name: Appearance of Cabinet Members. Thus, any department secretary may be summoned by either House of Congress through a resolution adopted by it, or upon his initiative and with the consent of the President, to appear and provide information or explain certain problems peculiar to his department. The House before which the department secretary appeared is then expected to adopt a remedial policy, bill, or resolution, that would remedy the problems encountered..
Against this backdrop, the Senate pursuant to its Resolution 13 dated Aug. 13, 2001 invited Defense Secretary Angelo T. Reyes, to answer certain questions related to the inquiry into the surveillance operations by the intelligence community on the activities of the senators. Resolution 13 required Majority Leader Loren Legarda “to submit to the Chamber a Report on the proceedings (together with her proposed legislative measures) arising from the appearance of Secretary Reyes not later than 15 days from the termination of the proceedings.”
The hearings were terminated on Sept. 3, 2001. The Majority Leader submitted her Report to the Senate president on Oct. 12, 2001. Here’s the rub: It was only on Oct. 2, 2002 that the Report was referred finally to the Chamber.
Which brings us to raise these questions:
Why did it take more than a year for the Report to be submitted to the Chamber? Why was the Report not disclosed to the entire Senate immediately after Oct. 12, 2001? Is the Report supposed to be a private matter for the Senate president to determine if at all he should disclose it and when, contrary to the injunction in Resolution 13 that it should be submitted immediately to the Chamber?
In our jurisdiction, where the presidential system prevails, the Question Hour takes a different name: Appearance of Cabinet Members. Thus, any department secretary may be summoned by either House of Congress through a resolution adopted by it, or upon his initiative and with the consent of the President, to appear and provide information or explain certain problems peculiar to his department. The House before which the department secretary appeared is then expected to adopt a remedial policy, bill, or resolution, that would remedy the problems encountered..
Against this backdrop, the Senate pursuant to its Resolution 13 dated Aug. 13, 2001 invited Defense Secretary Angelo T. Reyes, to answer certain questions related to the inquiry into the surveillance operations by the intelligence community on the activities of the senators. Resolution 13 required Majority Leader Loren Legarda “to submit to the Chamber a Report on the proceedings (together with her proposed legislative measures) arising from the appearance of Secretary Reyes not later than 15 days from the termination of the proceedings.”
The hearings were terminated on Sept. 3, 2001. The Majority Leader submitted her Report to the Senate president on Oct. 12, 2001. Here’s the rub: It was only on Oct. 2, 2002 that the Report was referred finally to the Chamber.
Which brings us to raise these questions:
Why did it take more than a year for the Report to be submitted to the Chamber? Why was the Report not disclosed to the entire Senate immediately after Oct. 12, 2001? Is the Report supposed to be a private matter for the Senate president to determine if at all he should disclose it and when, contrary to the injunction in Resolution 13 that it should be submitted immediately to the Chamber?
From thereon, the plot thickens further.
Why was action made on the Report only after it was discovered it had been submitted by the Majority Leader the year before?
Why was the Report referred initially to the Senate Bills and Index Service, with specific instructions to have it archived?
On Oct. 1, 2001, and then again on Cot. 2, 2002, the Minority Leader Nene Pimentel asked formally where the Report was, and the answer given was that it was still being prepared. Why this kind of answer when in fact there was already a report as of the last week of September, 2001, and nothing more was heard of the Report until Oct. 1, 2002 when The Daily Tribune disclosed the existence of such a report already submitted but destined to the archives? Who stands to benefit by the Report being archived?
For what would the Report serve, if it is not discussed on the Floor of the Senate? How can policy be formulated if the Report is consigned to the Archives?
Resolution 13 is mandatory on the need for the report to reach the Chamber. Why was it not disclosed to all of them, seasonably, in order that it would not, as one official in the Senate mistakenly concluded, be overtaken by events? Were it not for the demand of Sen. Tito Sotto, the Minority Leader, the Report might not have seen the light of day.
There is already a Recommendation portion of the Report, complete with the proposed legislative measures. But why would another resolution still be needed, as the Senate president insists, in order that the recommendations can be considered on the Floor in plenary? Why the reticence?
The initial Report prepared by the Senate Legislative Research Service saw print in The Daily Tribune on Sept. 24, 2001. Why were certain staff members of the Senate Secretariat given specific instructions on Sept. 26, 2001 not to disclose anything about the initial Report, and then again on the final Report?
Why was there too much concern, as evidenced by a note from a Senate official to the aforementioned Secretariat staffers, about the precipitate disclosure of the initial Report, prompting even an investigation that was conducted on Sept. 26, 2002? Whatever happened to that investigation?
To be sure, and in fairness to the Majority Leader, the initial Report and the final Report are similarly worded, except for a few editorial changes in the final Report. To say, therefore, that the final Report is a sanitized version may not hold water at all, and the truth lies in which perspective one takes. After all, the Report ones it reaches the Chamber, would still be subject to changes and there is nothing lost in the process since the records of the proceedings are complete and intact.
The Majority Leader’s recommendations are just that, recommendations, which may still be revised eventually by the Chamber after the debates. But what is most perplexing is the delay, or the attempt even to deny outright the Chamber’s right to discuss the Report, and put the nation in the dark on what has happened to the proceedings of the Senate on the matter.
Who stands to gain from this attempted cover-up? Who stood to gain from the delay? Who killed transparency in the Senate, and at whose bidding?
We have found all the questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers. The Report should now be taken up in plenary. The Senate has a duty to the nation: To disclose its findings, and adopt pertinent policy arising from such findings. Further silence or another year of delay simply would not do; it would be indicative of a Senate that is scornful of the nation’s need to know.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
Why was action made on the Report only after it was discovered it had been submitted by the Majority Leader the year before?
Why was the Report referred initially to the Senate Bills and Index Service, with specific instructions to have it archived?
On Oct. 1, 2001, and then again on Cot. 2, 2002, the Minority Leader Nene Pimentel asked formally where the Report was, and the answer given was that it was still being prepared. Why this kind of answer when in fact there was already a report as of the last week of September, 2001, and nothing more was heard of the Report until Oct. 1, 2002 when The Daily Tribune disclosed the existence of such a report already submitted but destined to the archives? Who stands to benefit by the Report being archived?
For what would the Report serve, if it is not discussed on the Floor of the Senate? How can policy be formulated if the Report is consigned to the Archives?
Resolution 13 is mandatory on the need for the report to reach the Chamber. Why was it not disclosed to all of them, seasonably, in order that it would not, as one official in the Senate mistakenly concluded, be overtaken by events? Were it not for the demand of Sen. Tito Sotto, the Minority Leader, the Report might not have seen the light of day.
There is already a Recommendation portion of the Report, complete with the proposed legislative measures. But why would another resolution still be needed, as the Senate president insists, in order that the recommendations can be considered on the Floor in plenary? Why the reticence?
The initial Report prepared by the Senate Legislative Research Service saw print in The Daily Tribune on Sept. 24, 2001. Why were certain staff members of the Senate Secretariat given specific instructions on Sept. 26, 2001 not to disclose anything about the initial Report, and then again on the final Report?
Why was there too much concern, as evidenced by a note from a Senate official to the aforementioned Secretariat staffers, about the precipitate disclosure of the initial Report, prompting even an investigation that was conducted on Sept. 26, 2002? Whatever happened to that investigation?
To be sure, and in fairness to the Majority Leader, the initial Report and the final Report are similarly worded, except for a few editorial changes in the final Report. To say, therefore, that the final Report is a sanitized version may not hold water at all, and the truth lies in which perspective one takes. After all, the Report ones it reaches the Chamber, would still be subject to changes and there is nothing lost in the process since the records of the proceedings are complete and intact.
The Majority Leader’s recommendations are just that, recommendations, which may still be revised eventually by the Chamber after the debates. But what is most perplexing is the delay, or the attempt even to deny outright the Chamber’s right to discuss the Report, and put the nation in the dark on what has happened to the proceedings of the Senate on the matter.
Who stands to gain from this attempted cover-up? Who stood to gain from the delay? Who killed transparency in the Senate, and at whose bidding?
We have found all the questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers. The Report should now be taken up in plenary. The Senate has a duty to the nation: To disclose its findings, and adopt pertinent policy arising from such findings. Further silence or another year of delay simply would not do; it would be indicative of a Senate that is scornful of the nation’s need to know.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment