The life, identity and background of Mayor Alice Guo of Bamban, Tarlac had filled the news and social media outlets in the past weeks. It all started when she failed to answer the tirade of questions that was thrown to her by Senator Risa Hontiveros about her childhood, her education and her descent. This was followed by the interrogations made by Senator Loren Legarda pertaining her wealth and alleged ownership of luxurious cars and a chopper.
However, history will tell us that this is not the first time someone gained instant popularity and captured much attention from both the media and the netizens by reason of the investigation being conducted by the senate. In recent years, there are the likes of Janet Napoles, who was coined as the pork barrel queen, and Dr. Hayden Kho who were subjected to the same questioning and had been the talk of the town for months by reason of the inquiries or investigation made by the senate.
Thus, in this week’s edition, I will discuss why and how the senate was empowered to conduct such inquiries/investigation as well as its nature and purpose.
As enshrined under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 21 “The Senate or the House of Representative or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Section 21 of the present Constitution empowers the Senate to conduct such inquiries and investigation. However, the same provision provides for its purpose and limitation, to wit: (1) that the inquiries be conducted in aid of legislation; (2) it be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure; and (3) the rights of person/s appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
This provision is worded exactly as Section 8 of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution expect that, in the latter, it vests the power of inquiry in the unicameral legislature established therein-the Batasang Pambansa-and its committees. The 1935 Constitution did not contain a similar provision. Nonetheless, in Arnault V. Nazareno, a case decided in 1950 under that Constitution, the Court already recognized that the power of inquiry is inherit in the power to legislate. (G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)
As explained in Arnault, although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body can legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information – which is not infrequently true – recourse must be had to others who do possess it. (Idem)
In the course of such inquiries, resource persons, experts in their respective fields and affected individuals are invited or summoned to give their inputs or ideas on what new legislation could be made to address a certain issue or problem and what laws need amendment in order to adopt to present times.
Clearly, the purpose of conducting such inquiries or investigation is to aid or assist our lawmaker’s in performing and discharging their constitutional mandate and task of crafting better laws. With that, investigations or inquiries conducted in aid of legislation should be distinguished from the proceedings made in court or quasi-judicial bodies whose judgment settles actually controversies involving right legally enforceable and demandable.
As pointed out in the landmark case of the Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ermita[1], senate or congressional inquiry could not usurp judicial functions. It also emphasized that senate or congressional letters of invitation – sent to public officials concerned, or to any person for that matter – must indicate (1) the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry; and (2) the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof. This was required in order to ensure that the intended inquiry is conducted “in aid of legislation”.
Now, after having learned the above-discussed, next time you watch a senate hearing, try to ask and analyze as to what legislative measure may be enacted based on such inquiry and whether the questions being asked are helpful in crafting such a law.
[1] G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006