In aid of legislation?

When was the last time the 57-year old Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, amended? My research shows that there was an amendment in 1961 (R.A. 3047), then in 1975 (PD 677) and the last appears to have been in 1982 (Batas Pambansa 195). Other laws on graft and corruption are the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (R.A. 6770); some provisions of the 1930 Revised Penal Code (R.A. 3815); the Forfeiture Act of 1955 (R.A. 1379); the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers of 1989 (R.A. 6713); the Plunder Law of 1991 (R.A. 7080), which was amended by R.A. 7659 in 1993; the Sandiganbayan Law of 1978 (Presidential Decree 1606) that was amended by R.A. 7975 in 1995 and R.A. 8249 in 1996; the law penalizing gift giving (PD 46) in 1972; and the Immunity law for bribe givers (PD 749) in 1975.

With the countless congressional hearings on corruption charges, supposedly in aid of legislation, I was expecting a lot of new laws or at least amendments to the old laws on graft and corruption in the past 20 years, but there appears to be none. Not a single one of substance. Of course, I would not count the very recent R.A. 10951, which merely adjusted the basis of penalties and fines under the almost 87-year old Revised Penal Code. This should have been done decades ago even without any legislative inquiry.

We seem to have all the right laws already but not properly implemented. Recent House hearings in the previous years have just wasted time, effort and taxpayers’ money. Clearly, the public has been taken for a ride, in the legislative investigations on the Fertilizer Fund scam, ZTE deal, PDAF / DAP irregularities, and other questionable government projects and purchases. What has happened to all these series of senate/ congressional hearings?  Where are the results? Indeed they all ended up as the series of national telenovelas.

If you have been listening to the questions asked in these legislative inquiries, you may say that “irritating” is an understatement. I find some of the questions funny or even stupid. Most of the serious questions asked are evidently not for the purpose of crafting legislation, but for the resource person to either admit guilt or impute guilt on someone else. I suddenly miss the great Salonga, Manglapus, Roco, Saguisag, and Tañada, to name a few of the good old legislators, whose wisdom and speaking prowess are truly for the books.

I often hear senators reminding witnesses of their chance to tell the truth so that the public will know.  Is there a need to establish the truth regarding a specific act of corruption before a law could be passed prohibiting and penalizing the same? Is it not expected of a lawmaker to think out of the box and pass a law to curtail even a potentially damaging act before it actually happens? Is the congress and the national TV the proper venue to ferret the “real truth” surrounding an anomaly? Should this not be done in judicial courts by the presentation of relevant, competent and admissible evidence? Did the truth really come out in the legislative inquiry that practically “convicted,” in the bar of public opinion, PGMA and other high government officials in the ZTE deal? Was anybody found guilty and imprisoned on the basis of the alleged “truth” that came out in said hearings in aid of legislation?

On the contrary, PGMA was dropped from the charges and those implicated were acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. Oh well, the whistleblower who spilled the “truth” was convicted of graft in a different case. The Sandiganbayan also dismissed many of the Fertilizer Fund and PDAF scam cases on the ground of inordinate delay. Would it not have been better for a congressman’s privilege speech to have simply pressured the Ombudsman to investigate faster rather than congress doing its own investigation? And while the PDAF inquiries may have resulted to the imprisonment of three senators, it seems the last one will also come out very soon.

Are legislative inquiries being used in aid of re-election to office, demonizing a public figure, or demolition of a political nemesis? Do we really need to have all these televised investigations on corruption, fake news or “tsismis”, crimes, drugs, smuggling, forbidden love affairs, and what have you, so that Congress can craft a law to deal with problems already known to everyone? Cannot our legislators just pass laws without camera lights, and just let the judicial courts convict those who must be punished for a crime?  Or if we already have all the laws we need, will not the country save a lot if there is a way for congress to “hibernate” for maybe ten years? For a start, why not ban or limit TV coverages of legislative inquiries? At least, this might lessen the “irritating” grandstanding of some of our esteemed legislators.

I remember what former Supreme Court associate justice Isagani A. Cruz said way back in 1995 about how our legislatures could “conjure all kinds of excuses to hold legislative investigations so that they can show off their profiles on television while competing for the limelight with the witnesses.” So, after all nothing has really changed.

We continue to witness inquiries in aid of legislation, but we have yet to see laws enacted or existing laws amended based on the investigations conducted. It is undoubtedly good to see our elected leaders at work. But it is another story when hard-earned taxpayers’ money is being used to fund these senseless inquiries with no positive outcome. I find it demeaning for our countrymen to stay glued on their TV screens everyday watching the proceedings go in every Senate inquiry. It is such a waste of time and money.

The very basis of crime, corruption and drugs remains unabated. Congress has become inefficient. The Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations of the Senate of the Philippines popularly known as the Blue Ribbon Committee seems unable to perform its task of investigating alleged wrongdoings of the government, its officials, and its attached agencies, including government owned and controlled corporations in aid of legislation.

Our lawmakers have resorted to the production of more telenovelas hoping to get a box office hit.  The machinery of governance in the Philippines is dysfunctional. What do we do now? What do we really want? We can no longer sit and let other people run our lives in this country on their terms. We must assert what we want. We must learn to unite and find one voice that can assist us to gain control of this country.

Our lawmakers need to strengthen our laws so that the government can achieve an acceptable functionality. Good governance does not mean being able to legally win a debate or assert an opinion on various governing principles in government. We need to simplify the organization and management of government to a more harmonious united functionality free of graft and corruption. We do not need to cower in fear for the influential members of society. Our leaders just need to serve what the citizens need in a livable and fair country.