Front page of the Philippine Daily Inquirer today are polled reports entitled “Senators scored for probing own crime” by Tarra Quismundo and TJ Burgonio, which by the words used insinuates a popular sentiment or opinion on the senate investigation on the DAP. This is not only an unbalanced news, but a very fearless, but face-less and fact-less, to the point of being tactless, view. Of all the persons whose opinions were cited in support of the report, it was only losing senatorial candidate Greco Belgica who was quoted as saying that “the airtime given to the cabinet officials to defend the program allowed them to justify the crime committed by the proponent, defeating the hearing’s purpose of determining the truth about the DAP”. The most that the other persons cited in the report did was to cast grime on the DAP But, Greco’s gripe is misleading because there has been no showing that any crime was committed by the DAP proponents. The most that is on record so far is that the Supreme Court ruled four aspects of the DAP (not the DAP itself) as unconstitutional.
But, why score the senators if the senate investigation turned out the way it did? As Belgica states the purpose of the senate investigation is to determine the truth about the DAP. Just like any other investigation, to ascertain the truth. A police investigation is conducted to ascertain if a crime is committed, or if there is a crime, to identify the criminals. If the investigation shows that there is no crime, or, if there is a crime, the female suspects are not the malefactors, can the investigation and the investigators be deemed as suspect? Will an investigation that inculpates a person be the truth, while one that exculpates him be propaganda?
As shown on TV, the senate investigation served its purpose of digging into the truth. Questions of facts were asked and factual answers were given. The use of leading questions does not indicate bias on the part of the inquirers. On the contrary it minimized air time. As any trial lawyer will say, a single leading question can take the place of multiple and circuitous non-leading questions.
In the absence of any other facts presented which would show the contrary, the facts elicited during the investigation should be deemed the truth whether the public likes them or not. And, the facts so shown were not wholly favorable to the DAP proponents, but were also unfavorable. If some senators asked questions one way, other senators, like nancy binay and grace poe (there must be some significance on this happenstance) were able to ask the other way. But, if the critics could be cavalier enough to bow before the distaff side, praising them for inquiring into the mis-uses and non-uses of DAD, why would they begrudge the stiff rods who poked into the uses of DAP?
One wonders why former senator joker arroyo reportedly wondered why the critics of the DAP were not invited to the hearing. They could have very well attended the hearing even in the absence of any invitation But, as senator arroyo fully knows, even if they were present, invited or not, there is no assurance that they would be able to air their view. If ever these critics were not invited this can only mean that their presence is not critically needed and their opinions are dispensable, which should be since senate investigations are not the proper fora for debates. Padre Faura pwede pa.
Belgica’s lawyer, Harry Roque, reportedly called the Senate’s demeanor during the hearing an act of surrendering its function of checking a co-equal branch of government. This posture is understandable since an advocate is supposed to advocate the cause of his client. But, then if the senate opted to do so, would this not also be in exercise of its right as a co-equal branch? And, if one, through his personal opinions, or many, through public demonstrations, attempt to exert pressure on the senate to act in the manner that they would want the senate to act, would this not also be in violation of or derogation of the senate’s rights as an independent and co-equal body. In this regard, it was wise for the framers of the Constitution to create three, an odd number, co-equal bodies so that in case of non-unanimity, the majority would prevail. In the case of DAP, if the perception is correct that the hearts and minds of the executive and the legislative beat in unison on the DAP, should they be excoriated for defying the supreme court and the rule of law?
Renato Reyes, Jr. was reportedly particularly angry over the exchange between Drilon and Abad. Mr. Reyes is shown to be always angry.
As shown on TV, the senate investigation served its purpose of digging into the truth. Questions of facts were asked and factual answers were given. The use of leading questions does not indicate bias on the part of the inquirers. On the contrary it minimized air time. As any trial lawyer will say, a single leading question can take the place of multiple and circuitous non-leading questions.
In the absence of any other facts presented which would show the contrary, the facts elicited during the investigation should be deemed the truth whether the public likes them or not. And, the facts so shown were not wholly favorable to the DAP proponents, but were also unfavorable. If some senators asked questions one way, other senators, like nancy binay and grace poe (there must be some significance on this happenstance) were able to ask the other way. But, if the critics could be cavalier enough to bow before the distaff side, praising them for inquiring into the mis-uses and non-uses of DAD, why would they begrudge the stiff rods who poked into the uses of DAP?
One wonders why former senator joker arroyo reportedly wondered why the critics of the DAP were not invited to the hearing. They could have very well attended the hearing even in the absence of any invitation But, as senator arroyo fully knows, even if they were present, invited or not, there is no assurance that they would be able to air their view. If ever these critics were not invited this can only mean that their presence is not critically needed and their opinions are dispensable, which should be since senate investigations are not the proper fora for debates. Padre Faura pwede pa.
Belgica’s lawyer, Harry Roque, reportedly called the Senate’s demeanor during the hearing an act of surrendering its function of checking a co-equal branch of government. This posture is understandable since an advocate is supposed to advocate the cause of his client. But, then if the senate opted to do so, would this not also be in exercise of its right as a co-equal branch? And, if one, through his personal opinions, or many, through public demonstrations, attempt to exert pressure on the senate to act in the manner that they would want the senate to act, would this not also be in violation of or derogation of the senate’s rights as an independent and co-equal body. In this regard, it was wise for the framers of the Constitution to create three, an odd number, co-equal bodies so that in case of non-unanimity, the majority would prevail. In the case of DAP, if the perception is correct that the hearts and minds of the executive and the legislative beat in unison on the DAP, should they be excoriated for defying the supreme court and the rule of law?
Renato Reyes, Jr. was reportedly particularly angry over the exchange between Drilon and Abad. Mr. Reyes is shown to be always angry.