The Republic
of the Philippines is ruled by democracy. It is democratic because the government’s
existence is for the cause of its people and by the power given by the people
through the form of election. Therefore, the public officers and its employees must
have the accountability to the public who elects them with their respective position.[1] Their
service to the public is not optional but they are mandated by the supreme law
of the land, the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In the Constitution the right of
the public to information shall be recognized.[2] That
is why; the State must have the responsibility to implement the policy of full
disclosure with all of its transactions involving public interest which is
subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.[3] But,
how can the public ensure that those rights are being enforced? What is their
assurance? Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution gives the
Congress the power of inquiry. Which they are constitutionally governed, to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation with the different public officials,
employees and other personalities to preserve the transparency and report the
information for public interest.
Last September
2014 Makati Mayor
Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay said that he will not attend the Senate inquiry
into the alleged overpriced Makati Building II as he intends to challenge the
jurisdiction of the upper chamber to conduct an investigation, his camp said in
a media conference aired live. They also questioned the
authority of the blue ribbon committee to issue a subpoena compelling him to
attend the hearing. He
said he would not attend, claiming that the proceedings were no longer in
pursuit of the truth but in the furtherance of personal agenda. He appealed
to the senators to observe proper decorum during the inquiry, which he said has
already prejudged him and his family.[4] In result to that, last January 28, 2015 the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena to arrest the said mayor because
of his refusal to answer the allegations. But he was freed right after the
committee, noted that Mayor Binay’s act manifested that he waive his right to
be heard together with the other public official in Makati who was also
arrested by the senate’s Sergeant-at-arms.[5]
The
factual news stated above implies that, the Congress’ power of inquiry (which is a constitutional obligation)
can be neglected that way (Mayor Binay’s
refusal). Now, it gives rise to the questions that; What if in the future
there would be an issue involving the public interest and the public figure
concern will just neglect or refuse to answer the inquiries in aid of
legislation? Can we consider that as a grave abuse of discretion? Is their blanket that would protect them from
the Congress’ power of inquiry? How can these public officials become accountable
to the public without full disclosure of the public information? After all, the
public office is a public trust.
This
study will focus on the scope of the Congress’ power of inquiry. To further understand
and seek the answers being raised by the researcher.
[1]
Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
[2]
Article III, Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
[3]
Article II, Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
[5]
https://ph.celebrity.yahoo.com/news/mayor-binay-arrested-freed-164446412.html;_ylt=A2oKmKvHRsxUfHAAdjOzRwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0dG4wc2c2BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA3NnMwR2dGlkA1BIQzAwMV8x
No comments:
Post a Comment