SENATE President Franklin Drilon’s declaration this week that Congress may investigate allegations of corruption in the judiciary is a prime example of legislative overreach supported by little else than political posturing.
Predictably, Drilon cited the oft-used excuse that such an investigation would be in aid of legislation, to determine how best to reduce corruption in the courts through new or amended laws.
Drilon’s declaration was ironic, given as it was in response to a call by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who has proven time and again that he is ready to abuse his power and position and to prostitute Senate proceedings to tar and feather his political opponents without sufficient evidence, then use the same hearings to dig up dirt against his unfortunate targets.
Were the 18 Blue Ribbon subcommittee hearings to date led by Trillanes against Vice President Jejomar Binay truly and honestly in aid of legislation? Or are the hearings being conducted simply to enable Trillanes to realize his oft-stated objective of putting the Vice President behind bars?
In justifying his decision, Drilon said court officials are not above the law, but acknowledged that the Senate may not compel judges and justices to appear before its hearings.
By asserting the his chamber’s power to investigate judges, however, Drilon is putting senators above the law.
The president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the national organization of some 40,000 lawyers, said that under the law, it is the Supreme Court that should investigate judges alleged to be involved in corruption.
This, said IBP president Vicente Joyas, is part of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Any attempt by the Senate to conduct an investigation would be a violation of the Constitution, the IBP president added.
At the same time, Drilon’s statement that judges and justices may not be compelled to appear before the Senate raises the inevitable question: Why then launch an investigation in the first place?
In the case of Trillanes, there can be no doubt about the true objective.
Clearly, the senator wants to do as he has done countless times before: bully Senate witnesses—in this case, associate justices of the Court of Appeals—into embarrassing public admissions or denials that he will then challenge them to prove. On the other hand, if the justices refuse to attend the hearings, Trillanes will use this to publicly humiliate them, and to accuse them of having something to hide. The hearings can then go on with the senator’s questionable witnesses—some of whom have been shown to lie under oath—to present the one-sided picture that Trillanes wants to paint.
How all this aids legislation is a mystery that the overreaching Senate President must address.