(MindaNews / 02 December) – I have been critical about inquiries in both the Senate and House of Representatives that are advertised as “in aid of legislation.” On the superficial level, the lawmakers running the show seem to be always on “performance” mode. Hence, it is so easy to suspect that these “hearings” are truly just about capitalizing on as much free airtime as possible before the campaign period officially starts.
On a deeper level though, it is genuinely hard not to be skeptical because the legislative purpose of these inquiries is never articulated with clarity and conviction. And the line of questioning employed by these lawmakers shows that they are gathering evidence to prove the guilt of certain public officials and employees. While it is understandable for the public to laud this effort, the fact remains that this is not the job of lawmakers.
It would be good to remind our lawmakers that the Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers that:
“The determination of who is/are liable for a crime or illegal activity, the investigation of the role played by each official, the determination of who should be haled to court for prosecution and the task of coming up with conclusions and finding of facts regarding anomalies, especially the determination of criminal guilt, are not functions of the Senate. Congress is neither a law enforcement nor a trial agency.”
This is not to say that the inquiries should cease. They can continue but lawmakers must make a conscious effort to respect the “in aid of legislation” aspect of the inquiry. Otherwise, criticism that it is politically motivated is warranted. Hence, it should be standard practice for lawmakers to establish at the very start the specific legislative objectives sought to be achieved. They should keep this in mind for future inquiries.
But for the current inquiries, lawmakers leading the proceedings should immediately explain to the public the legislative output they can expect. In fact, so far, lawmakers have identified two problems concerning the allocation of confidential and intelligence funds (Co-Intel Funds). First, civilian agencies have no real use for confidential funds. Second, transparency in the utilization of the funds has been wanting.
Consequently, a realistic outcome from this particular inquiry on Co-Intel Funds is the enactment of a law that tackles these two problems. One feature of this law could be a provision that expressly prohibits the allocation of Co-Intel Funds to civilian agencies like the Office of the Vice-President and the Department of Education. Even proscribing allotting such funds to the Office of the President (OP) should be considered.
Giving the OP billions in Co-Intel Funds is an extremely costly duplication. Note that the President already has full control over the police, military, and any other office within the executive branch that performs law enforcement and national security work. Meaning, these offices have already been allocated Co-Intel Funds. And, the OP should not be conducting similar operations. Abuse is truly a major concern as well given that we have a hyper-presidential system in place.
Any civilian agency must not be allowed to have Co-Intel Funds in their budget because they do not perform work that clearly and directly involves law enforcement or national security. As the congressional inquiry has shown, the potential for misusing Co-Intel Funds in this scenario is high. The money should instead be given to law enforcement and national security agencies that actually need and use Co-Intel Funds in the performance of their mandates.
Moreover, the proposed law should establish a more robust framework to ensure the proper utilization of Co-Intel Funds. This is imperative not just to prevent corruption, but also to make sure the operational objectives are actually achieved when using these funds. As the inquiries have proven, accurate documentation cannot be set aside. While the nature of the work involved here must be given due consideration, the constitutional mandates of transparency and accountability cannot be ignored.
The public has been a captive audience to all the theatrics of the lawmakers involved in the proceedings. For many, it has been a mix of entertainment and alarm. It is now incumbent upon civil society to put the congressional committees actively conducting inquiries in aid of legislation on notice, particularly about the necessary legislative reforms Congress must now work on. It is only proper to remind the Senate and the House of Representatives of the mandate imposed on them by the 1987 Constitution.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M is a law lecturer, policy analyst and constitutionalist.)