Friday, March 14, 2008 Arinday: The worrisome senate inquiry By G.H. Arinday Jr. Sunfare
PUSHED beyond the norm of parliamentary privilege and short of respect for the citizen's sovereign rights, no legislative inquiry has drawn so much mixed reactions (al least from the average thinking individuals) than the current ZTE broadband deal controversy.
By what measure can we candidly understand the catch-phrase "in aid of legislation" in relation to the rights of the average citizens being summoned before any committee in the august body of the Senate to answer questions barbed with question-begging grammar of politics?
The question being posed may sound trivial, but the strange echoes of totalitarianism, which we deprecate, have reduced the ordinary witness into a helpless prey of the publicity-seeking members of the investigating committees, which justifies some claim that the phrase "that sovereignty resides in the people" in the Constitution is nothing but a myth!
One cannot escape the inquisitorial manner by which the inquiry to know and discover "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", where a witness is threatened with contempt if he or she does not adhere to the line of suggestive questionings. In essence, what a particular senator wants of the witness is to confirm his own prejudices, presumptions, and perceptions, otherwise you are condemned as a congenital liar.
Outside of the august hall of the "wise men", the partisan wailings increased its crescendo when the witness affirms the notions, ideas and conclusions of the inquisitive senator. Thrash away the hearsay evidence rule as long as your steps are done in rhythm with the inquisitor whose agenda is aimed at toppling the Establishment at the expense of sufferance of the majority of the citizens.
Lest you think that this piece is designed to oppose the current senate inquiry of the aborted ZTE broadband project characterized by alleged bribery in huge quantifiable amount, which appears to be overwhelming, it is not. What is being raised in this feeble protest is how far can an average citizen protect his political and civil rights and keep untouched his very person as a "sovereign citizen"? On the same breathe, is there a definitive barrier where the legislators are not allowed to go beyond such wall?
Take the case of the much-vaunted "surprise" witness-technical consultant Leo San Miguel. He was bruised many times over by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, whose police mentality has not faded away by subjecting poor Leo to some degree of humiliation by not knowing along the lines of inquisitional method. Is this not a "dangerous vice" being indulged into by our esteemed leaders whose "authority emanates from the people"?
Did not Sen. Jamby Madrigal threaten to expose the "personal life" of Sec. Romulo Neri in the previous senate investigations? Now, the witnesses, the "hero" Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada, Joey de Venecia, Dante Madriaga and Leo San Miguel have to be subjected to "lie detector" tests as proposed by Sen. Mar Roxas, a presidential aspirant.
[In the case of Leo, his namesake St. Michael, the archangel, failed to use his sword to slay the demonic dragons threatening to devour him.]
A more profound thought would probably venture into asking if in the belief of the senate committees delving into the issues of alleged corrupt practices acts, would it not be proper to refer the matter to the established institutions like the Ombudsman, thence to the Sandiganbayan? Of what use are the prosecutorial services and the judiciary, if the Senate as it is evident that said legislative body wants to be the prosecutor and the judge at the same time?
Is this the meaning of "in aid of legislation" or just a prop to gain more media mileage? The answer lies by asking another question: What is the role of law in protecting the rights of the citizens being hailed before the Senate inquiry if the intent is to enhance an effective legislation? If graft-busting a part of this idealistic pursuit of "in aid of legislation"? What are the parameters where an ordinary citizen can be protected from the method of authoritarianism?
If a government constitutional body involves itself in all facets of society, including the personal traits of a citizen, then one would find himself losing a part of his dignity, and if not checked by the due process clause of the Constitution, the sobriquet of being a sovereign name is rendered meaningless.
The harsh rules of procedure without definite limitations in any legislative inquiry has its roots in the 15th century and notoriously advocated by Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98), a Spanish churchman and inquisitor, who took heavenly delight in inflicting cruelty in all forms on whom he deemed as heretics.
While we cherished freedom as natural law has endowed on a person to exercise his free will, yet oftentimes the temerity to destroy the same comes from authoritative entity in the guise of protecting its superiority over the constituency.
