An Exercise in Futility It’s a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” Catch 22 situation. That’s how Senator Chiz Escudero, Finance Committee Chair, described the predicament of the Senate in conducting the marathon hearing on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) last Thursday. Indeed, if the Senate did not conduct the inquiry critics would say that it was remiss of its duties and responsibilities. When it did, critics chorused saying that the exercise was pursued not for any other reasons but to defend and justify the DAP and clear the senators of their involvement in the controversial program. The Senate was wanting of credibility in the conduct of the investigation. A total of P1.07 billion was received by 20 of the sitting senators from the controversial DAP funds which they spent on their patronage projects and activities. The Senate could not therefore be impartial and objective, or could be perceived as impartial and objective, in conducting the inquiry. For delicadeza, it would have been better if it had acknowledged its moral inadequacy to conduct the probe under the circumstance and relegated the task to the House or to any of the latter’s appropriate committees. Was the inquiry necessary? What was gained from the exercise? If not for the aggressive questioning of the DAP-free neophytes in the Senate which imbalanced at times the resource persons but elicited only meagre and hardly any new information on the controversy, the inquiry would have, indeed, turned out completely into a moro-moro aimed to further extol the necessity and worth of the DAP and justify the involvement of the senators in the program. The power of the Senate and the House to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is provided for in our Constitution. The Senate or the House, or any of their committees, may conduct a probe and summon officials of the governments from any department to shed light on questions and issues affecting the operations of their offices. The underlying aim is to come up with legislative measures to resolve the issues and preclude the occurrence of similar problems in the future, and thus improve performances. Only the President of the Republic, out of respect to his position as the highest official of the land, and the justices of the Supreme Court, because of their collective power and duty to ultimately resolve legal and constitutional issues that may arise from any investigation, are exempt from such inquiry. So much has been spent in the conduct of congressional hearings in aid of legislation. The Senate and the House are quick to poke their nose on issues and controversies that hug the limelight - military misadventures, human rights violations, economic sabotage, corruption, man-made and natural disasters, and even celebrity scandals. But, has any law been changed, modified, upgraded, or new laws actually passed in response to the issues and problems our lawmakers put their hands into to improve our national circumstances? This exercise already puts many off. For instance, was the volume of evidences and the intense debate in the Supreme Court and its articulation and ruling on the constitutionality of the DAP not enough to inform and educate everyone on the matter, the senators and congressmen included, to necessitate the Senate inquiry? If they are that interested, cannot our lawmakers capture insights from the deliberations and findings of the Court in coming up with a legislation to grapple with the issues spawned by the DAP, such as on territorial imperatives, the limits of powers, and the liabilities for excesses in efforts at governance? The Supreme Court has actually done a good job in educating the public on the issue of governance arising from the DAP whether or not the opposing parties agree with its decision. The reaction of the President on the rulings of the Court on 14 July 2014, whether we also agree or not, provided additional insights on the challenges, opportunities, hazards and dangers in threading the delicate roads to reforms for effective and publicly responsive governance. The highest tribunal of the land had already spoken. In a little while, it will speak again, this time with finality, on the motion for reconsideration of Malacañang. Any further inquiry on the DAP may only prove as another exercise in futility.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:15:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015