Reason and Concern

By Ronquillo C. Tolentino

Congressional Power

of Investigation

Sec. 2l, Art.VI of the l987 Philippine Constitution provides: “ The Senate and the House of Representatives 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.” Sec. 22 of the same constitutional article in relation thereto, states: The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rule of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.”

The congressional power of investigation, as cited in McGrain vs. Daugherty, 273, U.S. 135 ( l927 ), considers as an essential and appropriate auxiliary to legislative functions. Legislation deals with social and economic maladjustments about which congressmen are no more automatically informed than college students and professors are. That in order to legislate wisely, lawmakers must be able to acquire the information they need, even it means subpoenaing witnesses and compelling them to testify on pain of punishment for contempt of Congress. Rightly has it been observed that many of the vital legislative reforms would never have been made if congressmen were unable to investigate the problems beforehand. Even as this is so, such inquiries, as succinctly stated in Quinn vs. U.S., 349 U.S. l55s shall not delve on strictly private affairs of a person unrelated to legislation and the rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights must be respected. But then, as emphasized in re Chapman, 166 U.S. 66l, in such inquiries, the legislature must punish contumacious refusal to testify or produce documents for contempt and no double jeopardy can be invoked in case of punishment for Congressional contempt.

Recalling the importance of congressional inquiry in R.B. McCallum (ed.), On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, l948), p. l72, observed that the power of inquiry also gives life and meaning to congressional supervision of the administration. Under the separation of powers spelled out by the Constitution, Congress would be hopelessly overshadowed by the executive if it had no power to call administrators to account. A law acquires meaning only as it is administered, and congressmen would be rendered almost impotent if they were denied the right to inquire into whether administrative practices and rulings are in keeping with the broad policy directives of Congress. “Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit,” John Stuart Mill submitted, “the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government…. And, if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfill it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office.”

“Although Congress can expel executive officers only through the laborious process of impeachment, its power of investigation, coupled with its control over the appropriations, assures it the power to supervise the work of even the most powerful executive officers. Finding the system of investigation “the main guarantee against dishonesty or inefficient administration.” Harold Laski, in his work The American Democracy: A Commentary and An Interpretation (New York: The Viking Press, 1943), said: “After all, a system which drove three cabinet members to resign in 1924 and resulted in imprisonment and two suicides may reasonably claim to have a measurable public value.”

“The function of informing public opinion is strengthened by the power of investigation. This informing function enters into almost everything Congress does. For example, Woodrow Wilson felt that investigations of the administration were themselves primarily important for their effect on public opinion. “The informing functions of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function,” he observed. “The argument is not only that discussed and interrogated administration is the only pure and efficient administration, but, more than that, the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.” In recent years, the informing function has been extended beyond administrative matters, as Congress has pushed its investigations in such areas as civil liberties, concentration of economic power, labor and business practices, lobbying, campaign expenditures and subversive activities.”

Eric F. Goldman, in his work The Crucial Decade: America, 1945-1950 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956), said “Like any other power, the power of investigation is sometimes abused. Rather than serving as a basis of legislation, it may be used to gain personal publicity or partisan advantage; rather than operating as a salutary check on the administration, it may become a means of usurping executive power; rather than informing the public, it may serve to confuse, mislead, and agitate.”

Evidently, in the history of Philippine congressional investigations, we find trial of individuals before the “court of public opinion”. Congress should stop to consider finding individuals guilty of crime what they can do by congressional inquiry that they cannot do by law. Congress should not be oblivious of “McCarthyism” which became a symbol of irresponsible, self aggrandizement, suspicion, insistence on conformity, demoralization and insubordination in the civil and military service, harassment of private citizens and guilt by accusations - all under a cloak of congressional power of investigation.

Notes: Tito B. Garcia, banker-businessman, a friend and brother to all, left this world on March 2, 2008. Tito was instrumental in the foundation of the Aklan Bankers Association, was a leader in the campaign to have a Central Bank clearing house in Aklan, former chair of the Metro Kalibo Water District and many other outstanding activities.

He was an ardent believer in the six-line creed of Jayceeism – belief in God that gives meaning and purpose to human life, brotherhood of man, economic justice, government of laws, human personality and service to humanity. He served the Jaycee movement as president of the Western Visayas Regional Jaycees, National Vice President of the Philippine Jaycees. He was Jaycee International Senator. His body arrived on March 5, 2008 on an afternoon flight. Wake and burial shall be at New Washington, Aklan. /MP