Congress should incorporate a rule that before any rascal or demagogue is permitted to exercise his so-called “parliamentary privilege” to summon people to appear before any of its committees, he should first submit in writing the point in law he wants clarified. This requirement is just and fair to equally inform individuals, especially those in the public service, why they are being summoned.
The idea for requiring members of the investigating committee to put into writing their queries is to inform the witnesses of the defects, deficiencies or absence of a provision about the law so that remedial measures could be legislated to prevent the occurrence of any violation. The object is to correct the law, and not to punish the witness because that aspect belongs to the court. The duty of Congress is to legislate, and whenever it may decide to hold a committee hearing, that should be in aid of legislation or to put it straight, to enact new laws, or to make amendments in order to prevent the recurrence of violation.
The incorporation of this rule is to realign the purpose that investigations should always be pursuant and consistent to their duty as legislators. The committee conducting the hearing should never treat the person invited to appear as accused, but as a witness. If we have this kind of rule, surely the members of Congress and the Senate would be doing their job of legislating worthwhile laws. That could also prevent rascals, demagogues, charlatans and grandstanders from exhibiting their malevolent objective of discrediting the administration for political mileage.
The power of Congress to summon witnesses is only for purposes of wanting to be clear about the law, and not to know who violated the law. It is only when Congress, as acting as Electoral Tribunal and an Impeachment Court, where it can hear, try, and decide cases. Nonetheless, while it is the House that removes the impeachable official, it is the Senate that hears and decides to convict the accused public official. Most important, it is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who presides over the impeachment process.
In the case of the celebrated “Ilocos Norte Six,” the rascals used their privilege to intimidate and harangue the witnesses, ignoring that Pedro Agcaoili, Provincial Planning and Development Office chairperson, Josephine Calajate, provincial treasurer, Eden Battulayan, provincial accountant, Encarnacion Gaor, Provincial Treasurer’s Office staff, Genedine Jambaro, Provincial Treasurer’s Office staff, and Evangeline Tabulog, provincial budget officer merely stood as witnesses to the alleged anomaly peddled by Congressman Rodolfo Fariñas involving the “misuse” of P66.45 million in tobacco funds to buy the questioned motor vehicles. A congressman by the name of Johnny Pimentel from Surigao del Sur even assured his audience that a jail already awaits Imee Marcos even before he could hear the side of the witness.
If the accused in a criminal case is given the right to remain silent, how much more those witnesses who obeyed the Order to appear but simply refused to answer the question/s tossed by their inquisitors for the purpose of singling out the person they have in mind? Some of the unenlightened members of the committee led by Rodolfo Fariñas want them to answer their questions which were designed to incriminate Ilocos Norte governor Imee Marcos, ignoring that the six are just witnesses who obeyed the Order to appear before it.
Contempt of court applies when the witnesses, by their contumacious act, stubbornly and willfully disobeyed the Order of the Committee to appear, and not when they refused to answer leading, biased and subjective questions. If the accused in a criminal complaint has the right to remain silent to protect himself against self-incrimination, such right even becomes sanctified and inviolable when the person is merely a witness. If the witnesses refuse to answer the question, the committee’s solution is not to detain them by arrogantly using their power to declare them in contempt of court, which incidentally, is not even a court, but to file charges against them to test their suspicion.
That way, both the witnesses and their accusers would be on equal footing to allow the witnesses to put up their legal defenses. As accused, they can be detained not for refusing to answer silly questions, but on the gravity of the charge if there is a prima facie finding to suffice their detention. But the rascals would not want this method because they knew the court will not condone their stupid grandstanding.
Their refusal to answer cannot be equated by Fariñas as contempt of court. He uneasily wriggled like a worm for the fact that his ego was pricked. The questions were framed indicating they were engaged in a fishing expedition. Neither would the witnesses admit to the misuse of the tobacco levy fund just to satisfy their lust for revenge. To falsely admit wrongdoing would logically implicate them, which they vehemently deny, stupid!
If Fariñas truly has the evidence, he need not go through the rigmarole of calling for an investigation in the guise of “in aid of legislation” but should go directly to the court and file a case. They need not even summon anybody to testify. Rather, the rascals want to impress it upon the public that Imee Marcos and the detained public servants of Ilocos Norte are bunch of thieves. It is ironic because it is this province that made this rascal their unglorified representative.
Notably, the power of Congress to detain a witness for contempt of court applies when the inquiry solicited has reference to the implementation or reexamination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation. The landmark case is that of Arnault vs. Nazareno where the inquiry was material or necessary to the exercise of legislative power. In this case, the committee was already acting as a virtual de facto court, and worse, were trying the witnesses for a charge that have yet to be filed against them.
The Speaker, who was forced to resign as cabinet secretary for his involvement in the fiasco, the Freeport deal, supported the arrogant usurpation of power of the court by the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability to violate the liberties of the witnesses, and worse, even defied the Order for release by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The members of the Committee, including Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, should be charged for criminally acting outside the scope of their duty. The Courts should punish them for insulting the majesty of the judiciary and to remind everyone that nobody, not even a congressman, stands above the law. They reduced the committee to a kangaroo court with them acting as prosecutors, jurors and executioners rolled into one.