Monday, November 17, 2008 Bautista: Endless legislative inquiries By Jun Bautista Straight Views
HERE we go again. The Senate is back doing what it does best: grilling witnesses in its hackneyed investigations "in aid of legislation."
The center of attention this time is former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc-Joc" Bolante, who is alleged to have masterminded the distribution of P738 million fertilizer funds to certain congressmen in exchange for their support to the candidacy of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during the 2004 elections.
It seems that every time an issue involving government wrongdoing or official misconduct surfaces, the Senate wastes no time in convening its appropriate committee and hear the matter under the guise of legislative inquiry.
One will be overwhelmed by the number and regularity of such investigations without seeing any significant outcome, such as the introduction of sweeping legislations and administrative reforms and bringing responsible people to jail, that nowadays people simply brush them off with cynicism by saying, "wala rin naman mangyayari diyan."
Among the famous senate investigations that for a while occupied the nation's attention are the Kuratong-Baleleng massacre, Jose Velarde-Iggy Arroyo affair, alleged rigging of the 2004 elections in Mindanao, "Hello, Garci" tapes, NBN-ZTE scandal, Jun Lozada "abduction," Euro-Generals, and the fertilizer fund scam.
These investigations come out charged in the beginning with all the media attention they get and the people's interest in them.
No sooner than later, however, they fizzle out of the media and public's attention, not to mention that of the seemingly brave legislators who showed a lot of muscle flexing during the height of these investigations.
Instead of the Senate always launching its investigations whenever there is sign of official wrongdoing, the Office of the Ombudsman -- as the constitutionally mandated body to investigate and prosecute official corruption and misconduct -- should be the first to initiate its probe and file the necessary cases.
The Office of the Ombudsman should take an active role, rather than maintain its usual one-liner response, "let the interested party file the necessary case," whenever asked about its reaction on such issues.
Corruption and official misconduct reaching the highest level are so pervasive in the Philippines that a passive or reactionary watchdog, let alone with a questionable independence, will not simply be up to the task of addressing these serious problems with dispatch and effectiveness.
Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez and her minions at the Office of the Ombudsman should be reminded that Section 13, Article 11 of the Constitution, as well as Section 15(1) of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) empower her office with the authority to investigate on its own cases of official misconduct when they appear to be unjust, illegal, improper, or inefficient.
This powerful constitutional watchdog, created in response to our sordid past of government corruption and official abuses during the Marcos era, should imbibe itself with great seal and dedication in running after malefactors in the government the way that the Senate is in initiating its passé investigations.
You see, I am not totally averse to these Senate investigations despite my unkind words for them. In fairness, given our government's prosecutorial agencies' inaction and lackadaisical attitude toward these cases, the Senate is probably the only one right now that is keeping a tab on official misconduct.
While most people -- me included -- regard these legislative inquiries with cynicism, perhaps even contempt, in a way they serve the purpose of keeping the public informed and to a certain extent possibly deterring future wrongdoing in the government, as the knowledge of exposure might prevent others from their criminal dispositions.
These endless legislative inquiries, which have become "gasgas"or "lumang tugtugin" in our vernacular, are indications of serious problems in our institutional structures established to prevent and guard against official misconduct. By this I am talking about the Office of the Ombudsman and the Justice Department.
It seems that these supposed vanguards against shenanigans in the government have become beholden to the powers that be. While we may not expect the Justice Secretary to be independent of the President, being the latter's alter-ego, we expect the prosecutors down the line who are invested with independent professional judgment -- whose oath as lawyers transcend their loyalty to the Justice Secretary -- to be above the influence of their bosses in prosecuting cases.
But we expect more from the Office of the Ombudsman which is an independent constitutional body that is beyond -- supposedly -- the control and influence of any other department of the government. The only partisan aspect of this office is the appointment of its holder by the President.
This is where I see the current problem with the Ombudsman's independence. The current Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez, is an appointee of President Macapagal-Arroyo and is known to be closely connected with her, being Justice Secretary under her administration twice before being appointed Ombudsman.
Given Gutierrez's close association with the President, it is hardly imaginable that she would unleash the Ombudsman's sword against the President's people. Unless someone files a complaint, I doubt that her office would initiate any investigation against someone connected to the President -- Joc-Joc Bolante included.
In the meantime, with all the fanfare and bravado -- and as distasteful as it may be -- let us continue keeping an eye on these endless legislative inquiries.
At least there is still one standing institution that makes it its business, although bereft of prosecutorial powers, to probe wrongdoing in the government.
