Funny and insensitive sides of legislative investigation

There is a provision in our constitution that empowers the Philippine Congress to “conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.” The legislative investigation (this is how this power is known) is a serious facet of lawmaking, but true to the off-tangent character of this column, let me call it, just for today and in relation to the investigation of the murder of Negros Oriental Gov. Roel Degamo, funny in appearance and insensitive in substance. I don’t intend though to offend Sen. Ronald de la Rosa in writing this article. In fact, if this write-up is distasteful to him, I apologize for this honest opinion.

First, though, let us try to understand the foundation of this congressional power to conduct legislative investigation. We are supposed to have elected learned men and women to both houses of Congress. Precisely we have chosen them because of their perceived competence. Yet, despite their individual geniuses, there are matters that may lie beyond their knowledge, matters that are within the scope of an intended piece of legislation. It is possible that either the brilliant senators or congressmen who contemplate to write a statute need the kind of requisite information he doesn’t possess but which other persons who aren’t members of the lawmaking body can provide. The Supreme Court said that “a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change”. To address such paucity of information, whichever house of Congress is attempting to legislate on such given matter, it can invite resource persons to aid them in crafting a law.

This was where Sen. De la Rosa looked funny. The committee on public order, chaired by the Davao senator, invited Atty. Renan Oliva, NBI Region 7 director. Attorney Oliva testified on the implementation of a search warrant against a digital gambling operator, the filing of a case versus the suspect and a subsequent dismissal of the case. De la Rosa took over the scene. Perhaps, not wanting to appear grandstanding, he declared that he had experiences similar to Atty. Oliva’s. His narration carried a tone of credibility. According to him, a suspect would attempt to settle the case with the police. Failing that, the suspect would try to arrange things with the prosecutor. If unsuccessful, the suspect, now the accused, would reach out to the judge. If the senator was that knowledgeable, what information did he need from the NBI director in order to draft a relevant bill?

There too, was seeming insensitiveness contained in the De la Rosa scene-grabbing declaration. It was rather clear to me from the senator‘s summation that when the cases that Atty. Oliva filed were dismissed by the court, the integrity of the judge was compromised! My reading of the Davaoeño’s mind emerged from his own subtle words. While the senator didn’t actually use such words amounting to bribery resulting in the dismissal of the cases, what wasn’t expressed by him in graphic language appeared more real than apparent. In effect, he nailed the judge to the cross of corruption without the judge being there to present his side.

Let me now go back to legislative investigation. If we were to be guided by the philosophy written by the Supreme Court, on this constitutional provision, our senators don’t need to spend time, energy, and huge expense to investigate the indescribably brutal slaying of Gov. Degamo. The Senate investigation is unnecessary. On the basis of available law, the police reportedly arrested the criminal perpetrators and identified the mastermind and sewn everything up, after all. Senator De la Rosa terminates and let go of this needless investigation so that the judiciary can do its task without distraction.