House committee chairpersons must be wary of Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas’ presiding over committee meetings if chairpersons fail to fast-track the supermajority’s agenda.
The decision of the Majority Floor Leader to preside over the subsequent meetings of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments was an offshoot of the near fistfight between two members after chairman Roger Mercado allowed a free debate on the differing methods of effecting amendments to the Constitution.
Under committee rules, the Majority Floor Leader, like other House officials, is only an ex officio member of committees and the chairpersons and the vice chairpersons are the presiding officers in that order.
Whether or not President Duterte pulls out of his travel bag a copy of the arbitral decision sustaining the Philippines’ sovereignty over the disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea, China must be constantly reminded of the Philippines’ victory.
As Spanish diplomat Salvador De Madariaga has said, the gun that will shoot is more eloquent than the gun which has shot.
It is to the Philippines’ national interest for China to be made always aware that the arbitral decision is the President’s gun that will shoot to set the tone of the bilateral talks.
I did not attend and participate in the Committee on Justice investigation because the findings were pre-determined and were forgone conclusions that:
There exists a narcotic trade in the New Bilibid Prison; and
Sen. Leila de Lima has linkage to the prison drug deals.
Why then should I attend and participate in an obvious and odious vaudeville?
It was not necessary to investigate the existence of a drug enterprise in the National Penitentiary because this has been previously validated and raids were even conducted. It is an open secret and the only thing lacking is the prosecution of the culpable convicts.
The Committee on Justice has no jurisdiction to find Sen. De Lima culpable because the jurisdiction belongs to the prosecutorial agency of the government.
There was a comedy of errors from the start of the investigation:
The Secretary of Justice brought in witnesses like inmates and officials of the NBI who are under his jurisdiction because the Bureau of Corrections and the National Bureau of Investigation are both attached agencies to the Department of Justice.
Many of the witnesses were assisted by lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), which is another agency under the Secretary of Justice.
The active participation of the Secretary of Justice in introducing his witnesses and propounding questions to them violated the Rules of the House on legislative inquiries in aid of legislation which limit the role of resource persons, like the Secretary of Justice, to making their statements and answer questions from the Committee Chair and Members.
Any eventual prosecution arising from the inquiry will be submitted to the Secretary of Justice and investigated by the prosecutors under him to determine probable cause. Consequently, the Secretary of Justice is both inquisitor and judge.
The Secretary of Justice, being the alter ego of the President, cannot actively participate in legislative proceedings in view of the principle of separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive.
The investigation of the Committee on Justice was a malevolent odyssey to publicly shame Sen. De Lima and defang her campaign against extra-judicial killings related to President Duterte’s deadly drive against the drug menace and criminality.
People must have the courage to speak out and tell their families, friends, associates, the community and the nation about their real sentiments on President Duterte’s flawed priorities and erratic rhetoric.
The freedom of expression must not be cowed by fear of rebuke, condemnation, reprisal or vengeance.
The government must respect the inalienable right of the governed to criticize those they had installed in power.
Democracy pulsates in the arena of free speech, not in the unanimity among subalterns.
The basis of President Duterte’s net satisfaction rating of +64 in the latest SWS survey is principally limited to his anti-drug campaign.
His overall performance with respect to other specific issues was not covered by the latest survey.
No questions were asked on (1) the effects on the nation and the economy of Duterte’s erratic outbursts and provocative tirades; (2) failure to ease the traffic gridlock; and (3) snail-paced implementation of the President’s socio-economic agenda.
While the President’s deadly campaign against the drug menace is still highly popular, such degree of popular acceptance is diminished by the 71% clamor that suspects must be arrested alive – a clear rebuke of the unabated extrajudicial killings of drug dealers and users.
