In Aid of Legislation

  The country has been witness to very interesting events in congress today.  Thanks to the introduction of the internet, youtube and other platforms, one of the functions of government, the legislature and its inquisitive nature to investigate in aid of legislation, and how the players perform such function is now open to every citizen who has the mind to watch and observe how these things work and the trimmings that go with it.  Sometimes, though, I find myself in a quandary whether such opportunity is good or bad for the country.  For one, many observers can be misled and come to misguided conclusions simply because somewhere along the way, something has been lost, like the real purpose for why such a thing is happening.

For starters, I find it odd that congressmen and senators would, instead of ferreting the truth out of their resource speakers by trapping them and inadvertently admitting their participation with illegal activities, just like Luistro or Gutierrez and/or the other young congressmen who are probably lawyers, these lawmen would use intimidation like they would a stubborn child, which actually, does not hold water, after a long while.  We would always hear a congressman threaten a witness by citing him or her in contempt, sometimes for more than one until said witness is banished till kingdom come.  What they fail to take into consideration is that it becomes too ordinary it is no longer a threat.  A child who has been admonished for an offense, will likely be immune to a punishment that has been given repeatedly over time until such punishment does not serve its purpose anymore. 

What perplexes me more is that when a witness has already given an answer, they would pounce on the witness if such an answer did not conform to what they expected.  It is common knowledge that the onus probandi or burden of proof lies on an accuser.  If they think the witness is lying, it is their duty to prove that such pronouncement is a lie but nevertheless, they should take the answer as it has been given at face value. For after all, they always claim that they have the records that belie a testimony given.  Remember that the proceeding is just in aid of legislation, hence, the committee is not a court of law and as such, the main proponents should neither be accusatory nor give a verdict in nature and should be thankful for their resource people for making themselves available and be of assistance to the task at hand, make laws that are logical and sound.  Instead, what the public sees is a game of intimidation to the point of bullying their witnesse, shouting and rebuking their testimonies.One must remember that these witnesses are not to be considered as criminals and have yet to be proven as such in a court of law.  There was one senator who was heard to say, “Napipiikon na ko sayo!”  like as if he was talking to an errant child.  Had I been the witness, I would have said, “that is your prerogative, your honor, but I have given you my response!”  Another senator that gets into my nerve is a newly elected senator who even before interrogating Guo, uttered, in all arrogance, “humanda ka at pihadong papawisan ka ng husto sa mga itatanong ko!” Was that even a proper utterance from a certain person who shall be addressed as “Your Honor? Said senator is known to have a show that actually condemns before it hears which, of course, is contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.   I also heard another senator a while back, saying to Guo, “You have to prove to us that you are innocent!” A very wrong notion, if you ask me for the simple reason that again, the burden of proof lies on an accuser.  I have been a one-time debate coach and I have always been telling my team that the negative does not have any responsibility to prove its case for the burden of proof always lie on the affirmative and that the negative’s responsibility is just to negate unless the affirmative has either proven their case or the negative is on the attack.  She, as a lawmaker should have known better, shouldn’t she?

Sayang lang, I can see that Cassandra Ong, notwithstanding her pronouncements that she has only reached, and not even finished Grade 6, can communicate in English rather well, as in her testimony, she was just the interpreter of the Chinese as they neither speak Tagalog nor English, the medium of instruction in the country. And yet, she can, in the words of Congressman Abante, drive circles around their heads.  It seems that these people have rehearsed what they are going to say until a verdict of reasonable doubt has been established and they are acquitted.   At a very young age, she owns fifty-eight percent of a company that has earned billions which is very unlikely.  It is apparent to me that she is a mere dummy and is being used by these POGO operators to gain advantage out of our laws which hopefully will be corrected by the proceedings in aid of legislation. I got that assumption just listening to her testimonies and yes, they need not have to cite her in contempt.   I wonder what kind of law should come out of these.  Just the same, I am still hopeful that the Filipinos’ real interest shall be served.