'Useless witness'
'Useless witness'
Updated 10:20pm (Mla time) Sept 28, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 29, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
SHE said she left early because she did not want to "provoke an incident." But Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago did just that, when she walked out last Thursday on a Senate investigation she was largely responsible for starting.
"I was afraid I might become too biting in my comments," Santiago said, by way of explaining why she quite literally turned her back on former President Fidel V. Ramos, the principal witness in the blue ribbon committee hearing on alleged irregularities in the Smokey Mountain reclamation project.
Santiago, whom Ramos defeated in the 1992 presidential election, continues to maintain that Ramos had cheated her of victory. And she does not bother to contain the contempt she feels for her one-time Cabinet colleague. Last Thursday, she characteristically called him "arrogant," and described his unprecedented testimony as nothing more than an exercise in "finger-pointing." Ramos, she said, with the practiced air of an expert in the political arts, was a "useless witness."
Now what exactly did Santiago expect, when she showed up at the hearing? That the first former president to testify in a Senate investigation would simply roll over and commit political and legal suicide? That he would 'fess up, so to speak? If she did, then Santiago should feel right at home in the chamber she calls "the Senate of idiots."
Questioned about the legality of the reclamation project, Ramos naturally testified that he had relied on the advice of his justice secretary (Franklin Drilon, now the Senate president) and his chief presidential legal counsel (Antonio Carpio, now an associate justice of the Supreme Court). His answer or defense was only to be expected.
What Santiago should have done, after Ramos stuck to his talking points, was to try to get him off his script. But all she managed to do was exchange one-liners with her political rival. At one point, Santiago told Ramos that he had not answered why a total of P3.1 billion was released to the controversial R-II Builders firm.
"I just answered that," Ramos replied.
"That's what you think," Santiago shot back.
And that was that.
All this absurd behavior raises the question: What are legislative investigations for? The short answer, of course, comes straight from the Constitution. They are "in aid of legislation." The long, comprehensive answer is more complicated and less complimentary. They are exercises in finger-pointing. More often than not, however, it is the legislators who are doing the pointing.
Consider the various hearings on the fiscal crisis or on related matters such as the proposed new tax measures. Essentially, our sainted senators and congressmen used these to shift the focus of public attention from the pork barrel to government-owned and -controlled corporations and Palace spending.
Or consider the hearings which dealt with the woes of the National Power Corp. These shifted the blame from the senators and congressmen who had approved the controversial arrangements, such as the retire-then-rehire scheme, to the government officials who implemented them.
The Smokey Mountain hearing last Thursday had a similar finger-pointing quality, but it wasn't only Ramos who was doing the pointing.
The reality is, legislative investigations have been abused in recent years. Instead of being used as a public forum to find out the truth about an issue of undeniable public interest, legislators have used the hearings to press their case, to advance their version of the truth. We would characterize their behavior as ideologically driven, except that party and personal interest do not an ideology make.
The unfortunate thing is that this crassly partisan behavior no longer seems remarkable or out of place. Almost everybody seems to be practicing it. Indeed, the very notion that senators and congressmen can rise above party or personal interest is altogether quaint, an idea from an idealized past.
Is it too much to expect that an ex-judge like Santiago withhold her judgment during a legislative inquiry? Or use the immense power of the process to get at the truth?
We agree: a witness may be useless. But what uses did Santiago have in mind?
Updated 10:20pm (Mla time) Sept 28, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 29, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
SHE said she left early because she did not want to "provoke an incident." But Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago did just that, when she walked out last Thursday on a Senate investigation she was largely responsible for starting.
"I was afraid I might become too biting in my comments," Santiago said, by way of explaining why she quite literally turned her back on former President Fidel V. Ramos, the principal witness in the blue ribbon committee hearing on alleged irregularities in the Smokey Mountain reclamation project.
Santiago, whom Ramos defeated in the 1992 presidential election, continues to maintain that Ramos had cheated her of victory. And she does not bother to contain the contempt she feels for her one-time Cabinet colleague. Last Thursday, she characteristically called him "arrogant," and described his unprecedented testimony as nothing more than an exercise in "finger-pointing." Ramos, she said, with the practiced air of an expert in the political arts, was a "useless witness."
Now what exactly did Santiago expect, when she showed up at the hearing? That the first former president to testify in a Senate investigation would simply roll over and commit political and legal suicide? That he would 'fess up, so to speak? If she did, then Santiago should feel right at home in the chamber she calls "the Senate of idiots."
Questioned about the legality of the reclamation project, Ramos naturally testified that he had relied on the advice of his justice secretary (Franklin Drilon, now the Senate president) and his chief presidential legal counsel (Antonio Carpio, now an associate justice of the Supreme Court). His answer or defense was only to be expected.
What Santiago should have done, after Ramos stuck to his talking points, was to try to get him off his script. But all she managed to do was exchange one-liners with her political rival. At one point, Santiago told Ramos that he had not answered why a total of P3.1 billion was released to the controversial R-II Builders firm.
"I just answered that," Ramos replied.
"That's what you think," Santiago shot back.
And that was that.
All this absurd behavior raises the question: What are legislative investigations for? The short answer, of course, comes straight from the Constitution. They are "in aid of legislation." The long, comprehensive answer is more complicated and less complimentary. They are exercises in finger-pointing. More often than not, however, it is the legislators who are doing the pointing.
Consider the various hearings on the fiscal crisis or on related matters such as the proposed new tax measures. Essentially, our sainted senators and congressmen used these to shift the focus of public attention from the pork barrel to government-owned and -controlled corporations and Palace spending.
Or consider the hearings which dealt with the woes of the National Power Corp. These shifted the blame from the senators and congressmen who had approved the controversial arrangements, such as the retire-then-rehire scheme, to the government officials who implemented them.
The Smokey Mountain hearing last Thursday had a similar finger-pointing quality, but it wasn't only Ramos who was doing the pointing.
The reality is, legislative investigations have been abused in recent years. Instead of being used as a public forum to find out the truth about an issue of undeniable public interest, legislators have used the hearings to press their case, to advance their version of the truth. We would characterize their behavior as ideologically driven, except that party and personal interest do not an ideology make.
The unfortunate thing is that this crassly partisan behavior no longer seems remarkable or out of place. Almost everybody seems to be practicing it. Indeed, the very notion that senators and congressmen can rise above party or personal interest is altogether quaint, an idea from an idealized past.
Is it too much to expect that an ex-judge like Santiago withhold her judgment during a legislative inquiry? Or use the immense power of the process to get at the truth?
We agree: a witness may be useless. But what uses did Santiago have in mind?
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home