Critics slam the senate for its numerous investigations which, while supposedly in aid of legislation, have been branded as in aid of election since the senators/investigators are perceived to be merely grandstanding with the aid of the various news media to assure themselves of re-elections. The latest of these concerns VP Binay. His camp bewails that the investigation has run wild and has gone outside its stated purpose. Senator Trillanes justifies the meandering by saying that with the presidential intentions of the VP, the people ought to know what kind of person they would be electing as president. This should be good.
In the judiciary, applicants are subjected to an interview by a panel of the Judicial and Bar Council, obviously to better ascertain their fitness for the position instead of just relying on their bio-data and other written submissions, which would understandably be self-serving. For the same reason, the appointments of members of the cabinet and other officials are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, which may subject them to oral interviews. The more reasons should there be a similar process to vet bets for the presidency.
At present, public debates among presidential hopefuls are organized to better inform the public, but these are grossly inadequate for the purpose. Candidates can always hide or even lie in their answers since their statements are not under oath. But in a senate investigation, for instance, they may only do so under risk for prosecution for perjury. Also, the issues or topics in the debates are limited and specified. Time limitations may not allow for more effective inquisitions into a candidate’s character. The moderator may not have the skills of an effective cross examiner.
Perhaps a law could be passed institutionalizing the presently maligned manner of conducting senate investigations for the purpose of determining the fitness of a person to run as president, in aid of the election of the president. While the constitution does not prescribe this, neither does it proscribe this. The law could provide that after the filing of certificates of candidacies and before a certain date, the candidates should appear before the Senate and be subjected to questions on any topic under the sun (with possible exceptions on purely personal matters which would not affect the civil service). This way the people would know who is with the least without sin and let him win.
Since the senate is the impeachment court, then it could also be the forum for pre-election official assessments of the presidential candidates. Then the best person would most likely win, which in turn would render most unlikely a more expensive process of impeachment.
If there is such a law, it would similarly impact on other persons who may have long range plans for the presidency, so that even as they plan they do not covet, cementing a more continuous and lasting daang matuwid.
In the judiciary, applicants are subjected to an interview by a panel of the Judicial and Bar Council, obviously to better ascertain their fitness for the position instead of just relying on their bio-data and other written submissions, which would understandably be self-serving. For the same reason, the appointments of members of the cabinet and other officials are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, which may subject them to oral interviews. The more reasons should there be a similar process to vet bets for the presidency.
At present, public debates among presidential hopefuls are organized to better inform the public, but these are grossly inadequate for the purpose. Candidates can always hide or even lie in their answers since their statements are not under oath. But in a senate investigation, for instance, they may only do so under risk for prosecution for perjury. Also, the issues or topics in the debates are limited and specified. Time limitations may not allow for more effective inquisitions into a candidate’s character. The moderator may not have the skills of an effective cross examiner.
Perhaps a law could be passed institutionalizing the presently maligned manner of conducting senate investigations for the purpose of determining the fitness of a person to run as president, in aid of the election of the president. While the constitution does not prescribe this, neither does it proscribe this. The law could provide that after the filing of certificates of candidacies and before a certain date, the candidates should appear before the Senate and be subjected to questions on any topic under the sun (with possible exceptions on purely personal matters which would not affect the civil service). This way the people would know who is with the least without sin and let him win.
Since the senate is the impeachment court, then it could also be the forum for pre-election official assessments of the presidential candidates. Then the best person would most likely win, which in turn would render most unlikely a more expensive process of impeachment.
If there is such a law, it would similarly impact on other persons who may have long range plans for the presidency, so that even as they plan they do not covet, cementing a more continuous and lasting daang matuwid.