The perils of cosplaying as police, prosecutor, and judge

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Taxpayers spend so much for lawmakers to cosplay as police, prosecutor, and judge that they should be asking themselves what is actually achieved by these so-called inquiries in aid of legislation. I say “so-called” because these investigations do not actually claim any legislative objectives.

Take for instance, the four committees of the House of Representatives “investigating” the links between illegal activities involving Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), the drug trade, and the extrajudicial killings perpetuated under former President Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war campaign.

The lawmakers headlining this inquiry are open about the fact that their intent is to outline the crimes committed and determine the guilty parties. Not surprisingly, they are doing this with specific vigor against certain political figures. What is not clear is their legislative objective. Once again, the “in aid of legislation” part of the work is ignored.

So, what is the end result of these investigations? Well, they very rarely lead to actual legislation. And the final committee report must still be handed over to actual prosecutors such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Ombudsman. Congress cannot prosecute criminals nor can they pass judgement and impose prison sentences.

The real prosecutors will still have to start from scratch in gathering evidence to prove the indictment beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, lawmakers are not duty-bound to follow the rules of evidence as actual prosecutors would be in an actual court of law. Therefore, for purposes of criminal prosecution, the findings of a legislative committee cannot just be automatically adopted.

The prosecution, however, can enlist lawmakers as witnesses as in the case of Sen. Risa Hontiveros and former senator Richard Gordon in the graft case filed in the Sandiganbayan against former health secretary Francisco Duque III and former Department of Budget and Management official Lloyd Christopher Lao.

Alarmingly, a big section of the public expects these legislative hearings to deliver justice. Though they do sometimes, but only in the court of public opinion. Lawmakers have a knack in shaming suspected criminals whom they designate as “resource persons”. They then ignore due process and just happily perform for the bloodthirsty gallery.

But this is not the justice we really want. This is mob justice. We want criminals prosecuted and imprisoned. There is a process for this and it does not involve lawmakers. Seems self-explanatory, but the constitutional mandate of lawmakers is lawmaking. Hence, what taxpayers should expect from them are laws that address our problems.

Whereas, some sectors of our community assert that these lawmakers are just filling a governance gap. Essentially for them lawmakers are just doing the work other government agencies are failing or refusing to do. Who else can deliver justice to the victims of these crimes? Such is their rationale.

This is a fair point. But as previously explained, lawmakers cannot actually deliver the justice these victims deserve. Indeed, the most alarming peril of all is believing that justice will be served by these legislative inquiries. Sure the public will get crucial information about high profile crimes, but sadly, not justice. Only courts of law can deliver that.

Therefore, for the sake of the victims of crimes, it is incumbent upon law enforcement agencies, the DOJ, the Ombudsman, and the courts of law to be transparent and accessible to the public. This is already mandated by the 1987 Constitution. Hence, there should be less effort skirting around this duty and more demonstrations of compliance.

Let us be clear however, that this duty is not satisfied by merely parading suspects on TV. This is another form of Epalismo that needs to be discarded. Access to information means making it convenient for the public to know the details of the investigation and prosecution of criminal indictments.

Thus, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and court representatives must give updates either through their respective websites or through press conferences. It also entails being accessible, within reasonable means, to media inquiries. The point to drive here is that they must make an effort not to be outshined by attention-hungry lawmakers.

These institutions are expected to be judicious in the information they share, but the public’s right to know must always be given a high premium. Needless to say, civil society, especially media, also plays an important role in this scenario. Possessing the information is a big responsibility. How it is used will also impact the primary goal of giving justice demanded by the victims of crimes.