Triangular controversy

Unless equipped with the necessary information, our legislators are really hard put in crafting the necessary laws that are useful and beneficial to our country and people. So they are empowered to conduct legislative investigation "in aid of legislation". They can summon "resource persons" who will give them the data and materials they need to come out with said legislations. And, in the exercise of that power, like any other power, they need sufficient tools or ancillary powers to enforce it. One of these tools is logically the power to punish for contempt those who ignore their summons or refuse to cooperate with them upon heeding their invitation. The "why" of this power of legislative inquiry and the process of enforcing it, is therefore largely undisputable. But because of "how" it is exercised, the "why" of its grant somehow becomes less convincing and more unsound.

Attending such inquiries is not something to look forward to, whether as an observer or a participant. Our legislators oftentimes forget that they are simply asking for assistance from the people whom they summon for some information. There has been so many instances when the "witnesses" called are treated more as accused or suspects of some wrongdoing than as "resource persons" out to help them in their task of crafting laws. Most common during these inquiries is the sight of persons testifying and squirming in their seats because of the browbeating and harsh and insulting words they receive. The arrogant air of power is sometimes so thick as to be reminiscent of the Spanish Torquemada inquisitions of the past. Sometimes also, the behaviors of the protagonists and the questions ask turn the proceedings into a sideshow resembling a circus rather than a legislative process in aid of legislation.

"In aid of legislation" is a phrase so broad and encompassing especially under the Philippine setting because, as the Supreme Court said in the landmark case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29, the totality of legislative power possessed by Philippine Congress and its legislative field is "well nigh unlimited" unlike in the United States where legislative power is shared by the US Congress and the State Legislatures. The Supreme Court in Arnault admitted that "it would be difficult to define any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry can be bounded". So, the questioning is almost unchecked because the materiality of the question is determined by "its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation". Thus, comparing the number of laws passed with the figures on the legislative inquiries conducted, it is quite obvious that an enormous amount of time has truly been wasted on legislative investigations which are not in aid of legislation. In almost every session of Congress, jueteng and corruption probes have been initiated, but not a single law has come out of such investigations. Although some of them led to the filing of cases in the proper courts of justice, this result has only given rise to the criticism that they are undertaken more "in aid of prosecution" than "in aid of legislation". In these instances, Congress has definitely overstepped the limits of its power to inquire. In fact, in the case of Bengzon, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. 89914, November 20, 1991, the Supreme Court had to stop the inquiry precisely because it was no longer in aid of legislation but in aid of prosecution.

It is under this rather unwholesome background that the on going Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigation on the Venable LLP contract is being viewed. Apparently, the Committee has all the right to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transaction in aid of legislation. And when NSA Norberto Gonzales refused to answer some basic and simple questions, the Committee is really justified in ordering his detention until he cooperates and answers the questions satisfactorily or until the legislative body ceases to exist upon its final adjournment (Lopez vs. De los Reyes 55 Phil.170). Gonzales cannot use his right against self incrimination in refusing to answer because such right is available only to the accused in a criminal case as held in Bengzon Jr., supra. The problem however is that the manner of questioning, while within reasonable bounds, was not vulnerable to attack for failure to fully satisfy the basic tenets of courtesy accorded to a member of the co-equal branch. Thus the source of the controversy is again "how" the power was used especially in the light of the Constitutional mandate that the "rights of persons appearing in or affected by such (legislative) inquiries shall be respected" (Section 21).

To be sure, the appearance of a Cabinet Member who is an alter ego of the Chief Executive of a separate and independent Branch before a co-equal body, already implies some kind of "submission". If the Executive Branch wanted to invoke its independence it should have done so when it was first invited to appear. It should have known that its voluntary appearance is bound to spark a clash of power between the two Branches more so when it entails protecting its respective turf. Going to the Supreme Court now may rather be too late because of its previous implied waiver and submission. Besides the very violation of the principle of separation of powers which it is using as ground in filing a case against a co-equal Branch may be the same ground that the Supreme Court, another co-equal Branch, may use in refraining from taking cognizance of the case. This is indeed a triangular controversy.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]