Consolation prize
Consolation prize
Updated 01:07am (Mla time) Oct 27, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 27, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
WHEN Senator Panfilo Lacson said, "I don't think the congressmen realize that what they are investigating is [Major General] Carlos Garcia's version of their own pork barrel," he had a point. The point primarily involves perception, but it's also an institutional one. Lacson told the press: "Assuming the allegations against General Garcia are true -- that he took commissions from suppliers -- what makes the difference between a general receiving commissions from a congressman or a senator receiving commissions from suppliers and contractors? It's the same banana."
This is Lacson's point on perception: The public is not giving credit to the House of Representatives for looking into the accusations against Garcia. His institutional point is also fair: There is no difference, morally or, it can be argued, even legally, between a general skimming off the top and being on the take, and a legislator receiving commissions and bribes. Both represent people in authority violating their duties and acting irresponsibly. Both involve people on the public payroll breaking the law.
He also has a point in suggesting that his legislative colleagues "take a good look at themselves in the mirror before asking questions." But is it correct to suggest, as his statements imply, that Congress has no business mounting hearings on the Garcia case?
Congressional hearings are not part of the process of meting out justice. That is clear. Congress investigates only in aid of legislation. Does a hearing in aid of legislation include the congressional hearings that have taken on the characteristics of a fishing expedition?
A fishing expedition, in the sense used by the media, is a hearing that attempts to trip up witnesses so that they will come up with information that incriminates either the witnesses or other people. It is a hearing undertaken not to verify facts for the purpose of arriving at informed legislation, but rather to come up with information for political purposes. If the congressmen, for example, who grilled Garcia had gotten him to confess, it would not have helped legislation, although it would certainly have made headlines and perhaps even helped the investigation into his actions.
However, only a court martial and the Office of the Ombudsman can actually do something about Garcia, and only (in the case of a court martial) after a trial by his peers or (in the case of the Ombudsman) a trial before a civilian judge. Congress in and of itself cannot mount either a criminal or administrative investigation or prosecution before the courts.
This is actually the essential point of Lacson's comments. It is a point that has been repeatedly made concerning Congress' use-and abuse-of its authority to hold hearings in aid of legislation. Lacson is fortunate that his colleagues in Congress have been tardy in pointing out the many ways their hearings could have actually aided legislation: for example, in amending the Articles of War, or in drafting a law putting the comptrollership of the Armed Forces in civilian hands, as has been suggested.
This only goes to show that Lacson's suspicion that his congressional peers are interested only in grandstanding, and not justice, might be true. It also serves to fortify the original points of Lacson.
But whether or not the House of Representatives didn't really mean to investigate in aid of legislation, the fact is, in however small a way, the hearings did help to show just how serious the case against Garcia is.
This has nothing to do with the fitness of individual legislators to make inquiries. Rooting out sinners does not require saints. Specifically, since the law is impersonal, its enforcement and operation do not require the enforcers to be law abiding. What it does mean is that the moral aspects of the law are subverted when insincerity and even guilt are suspected of those who try to wield the law.
This is where the concept of moral ascendancy comes in. The law would be much more effective if those who make the laws and enforce the laws are not suspected of ignoring the laws. As things stand, though, better crooks running after another crook, than no one running after crooks at all.
Updated 01:07am (Mla time) Oct 27, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 27, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
WHEN Senator Panfilo Lacson said, "I don't think the congressmen realize that what they are investigating is [Major General] Carlos Garcia's version of their own pork barrel," he had a point. The point primarily involves perception, but it's also an institutional one. Lacson told the press: "Assuming the allegations against General Garcia are true -- that he took commissions from suppliers -- what makes the difference between a general receiving commissions from a congressman or a senator receiving commissions from suppliers and contractors? It's the same banana."
This is Lacson's point on perception: The public is not giving credit to the House of Representatives for looking into the accusations against Garcia. His institutional point is also fair: There is no difference, morally or, it can be argued, even legally, between a general skimming off the top and being on the take, and a legislator receiving commissions and bribes. Both represent people in authority violating their duties and acting irresponsibly. Both involve people on the public payroll breaking the law.
He also has a point in suggesting that his legislative colleagues "take a good look at themselves in the mirror before asking questions." But is it correct to suggest, as his statements imply, that Congress has no business mounting hearings on the Garcia case?
Congressional hearings are not part of the process of meting out justice. That is clear. Congress investigates only in aid of legislation. Does a hearing in aid of legislation include the congressional hearings that have taken on the characteristics of a fishing expedition?
A fishing expedition, in the sense used by the media, is a hearing that attempts to trip up witnesses so that they will come up with information that incriminates either the witnesses or other people. It is a hearing undertaken not to verify facts for the purpose of arriving at informed legislation, but rather to come up with information for political purposes. If the congressmen, for example, who grilled Garcia had gotten him to confess, it would not have helped legislation, although it would certainly have made headlines and perhaps even helped the investigation into his actions.
However, only a court martial and the Office of the Ombudsman can actually do something about Garcia, and only (in the case of a court martial) after a trial by his peers or (in the case of the Ombudsman) a trial before a civilian judge. Congress in and of itself cannot mount either a criminal or administrative investigation or prosecution before the courts.
This is actually the essential point of Lacson's comments. It is a point that has been repeatedly made concerning Congress' use-and abuse-of its authority to hold hearings in aid of legislation. Lacson is fortunate that his colleagues in Congress have been tardy in pointing out the many ways their hearings could have actually aided legislation: for example, in amending the Articles of War, or in drafting a law putting the comptrollership of the Armed Forces in civilian hands, as has been suggested.
This only goes to show that Lacson's suspicion that his congressional peers are interested only in grandstanding, and not justice, might be true. It also serves to fortify the original points of Lacson.
But whether or not the House of Representatives didn't really mean to investigate in aid of legislation, the fact is, in however small a way, the hearings did help to show just how serious the case against Garcia is.
This has nothing to do with the fitness of individual legislators to make inquiries. Rooting out sinners does not require saints. Specifically, since the law is impersonal, its enforcement and operation do not require the enforcers to be law abiding. What it does mean is that the moral aspects of the law are subverted when insincerity and even guilt are suspected of those who try to wield the law.
This is where the concept of moral ascendancy comes in. The law would be much more effective if those who make the laws and enforce the laws are not suspected of ignoring the laws. As things stand, though, better crooks running after another crook, than no one running after crooks at all.
posted by Dante at 1:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home