Legislative inquiry is but a fact-finding exercise
I myself am critical of our legislators’ exercise of the congressional power of investigation which, in my view, does not adhere faithfully to the constitutional intent to limit its scope to being “in aid of legislation.” The Senate’s own Rules of Procedure provide that to be “in aid of legislation,” such inquiries may refer to the implementation or reexamination of any law or proposed legislation.
To put it succinctly, the only legitimate object of Congress in conducting an inquiry is to aid itself in the discharge of its legislative duties. But the sad reality is that, oftener than not, the inquiry is unrelated to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress. This is especially so where the aim of the inquiry is to look into possible violations of law or charges of wrongdoing against government officials or even private persons, with a view to determining liability or accountability—a matter that appears more within the province of the prosecution agencies in the executive branch and ultimately of the courts.
While it is an established principle that Congress’ power to conduct inquiries is inherent in or an attribute of the legislative process, it is not absolute. It must be used only to implement a clear and precise legislative purpose. It cannot be as great as or greater than the plenary power to legislate. It should not appear that “the sky’s the limit.” Nor should such power be utilized as a prerogative of Congress to investigate “anything under the sun.” As the US Supreme Court in Watkins vs US (354 US 178) put it, “That power is broad …. But broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited.”
Recent experience has shown that congressional inquiries are purportedly in aid of legislation but are actually aimed at ferreting out irregular, anomalous and corrupt practices of government functionaries. Utilizing this inquisitorial power to probe reports of irregularities and so-called scams or scandals in government is all right so long as it is not focused solely on determining the guilt or innocence of the officials or private persons concerned, or finding possible grounds for administrative or criminal action against them.
The lament of some keen observers of the contemporary scene is that nothing good seems to come out of these inquiries given the manner in which legislators exercise their investigative power. Inevitably, Congress finds itself bogged down in such wearisome, seemingly interminable inquiries. At the drop of a hat, as it were, a seemingly trigger-happy Congress would threaten to investigate alleged illegal, irregular, anomalous and corrupt practices in government that are brought to its attention. Given the considerable time and effort, let alone the huge outlay of public funds, that are involved in the conduct of these inquiries, Congress’ legislative work is impeded or stalled, to the detriment of public service.
Decades ago, a prominent Filipino journalist pointedly asked: “What benefit has the public derived out of so-called congressional inquiries? Our people have grown tired of these much-publicized investigations … [which] started like a house on fire and have ended up in either silence or a perfect whitewash.”
Apropos of this was Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiagoís unsolicited advice to her colleagues to “go easy on probes in aid of legislation” which are “valueless and are of no help at all” (Inquirer, 8/29/11). And paraphrasing the rueful observation of an American writer, Congress has a penchant for always investigating somebody in private life or in the bureaucratic life of the government, but nobody is investigating Congress.
What is more lamentable is that the power of legislative inquiry can be abused or misused, that congressional committees tasked to undertake the inquiry can go overboard during the hearings (which border on proceedings peculiar only to the courts), and that these committee members, evidently for sensationalism or grandstanding, pose questions that tend to browbeat, badger, harass, irritate, insult, humiliate, defame, threaten, intimidate and embarrass resource persons, as if they are being cross-examined during a court trial. In the process, they are subjected to abuse, public scorn and obloquy. And all these are done with impunity by the investigating legislators, who are protected by the mantle of parliamentary immunity.
It is not a rarity that, unable to resist the TV camera during an inquiry, a loquacious and arrogant senator would subject to incessant grilling certain hapless resource persons who thereby become the target of ridicule and sarcasm to the point of public humiliation.
I submit that the power of legislative inquiry should not be viewed as vouchsafing Congress a license to convert the investigation into a judicial-type hearing. By constitutional design, it is but a fact-finding exercise aimed at gathering data and information needed to support the legislative process. To be sure, a legislative inquiry was never intended to be a forum for ascertaining the guilt or innocence of any person. Congress should not be equated with or placed in the same category as investigative agencies or law enforcing authorities. It is first and foremost a legislative body.
Thus, there is a need for an amendment to the pertinent provision of the 1987 Constitution so as to keep the exercise of the power of legislative inquiry within reasonable bounds. Specifically, the proposed amendment would restrict in unequivocal terms the legislative inquiry to a data-gathering exercise toward eliciting the information needed to support the law-making process. The inquiry will be conducted for no other purpose. The desired data and information shall be obtained from invited resource persons or expert witnesses.
Congress is accordingly challenged to seriously consider this proposal from a concerned citizen in the interest of meaningful and effective governance.
Lawyer Bartolome C. Fernandez Jr. is a retired audit commissioner.
