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.