THE Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, otherwise known as the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, is about to submit a full report on its extended “inquiry in aid of legislation” into the unbridled flood control corruption scandal that has traumatized the nation. We expect to hear some concrete recommendations on how to improve the state’s ability to fight corruption. This was the basic problem addressed by the inquiry, and it is but natural for the public to expect recommendations along this line. The purpose was corrective rather than prosecutorial or punitive in nature.
But advance information emanating from the Blue Ribbon Committee chairman, Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson, has revealed that the report will recommend the prosecution of numerous private contractors and at least three incumbent senators, including a former Senate president, believed to have benefited from the corruption.
This sends an important message — namely, that no one is above the law or untouchable. But it raises a fundamental question. Can an inquiry in aid of legislation be used to initiate criminal prosecution? When does such an inquiry cease being “legislative” and begin being prosecutorial and punitive in nature?
Under the Constitution, the Senate or the House, or any of its respective committees may conduct an inquiry “in aid of legislation” in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The only other sentence in Section 21 of Article VI reads: “The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” The Constitution does not authorize the committee to engage in prosecution.
The committee inquiry began after the president disclosed in his State of the Nation Address on July 28, 2025, that from 2022 to 2025, at least 15 specially favored flood control contractors were able to corner 18 to 20 percent of all flood control funds, amounting to at least P100 billion, without delivering the appropriate projects on the ground. All the projects were found to have been substandard, while many were completely nonexistent or “ghost.”
In a couple of previous columns, I had observed that in a parliamentary system, the prime minister would have taken responsibility for the fiasco, and the government would have fallen. A new government would have taken over. Given our particular presidential system, the president did not feel himself personally accountable, and did not even ask the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to take the fall. Until he was finally sacked much, much later, Public Works secretary Manuel Bonoan continued to profess total ignorance about the highly anomalous deals.
But under its previous chairman Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, the Blue Ribbon Committee, motu proprio, sought authority from the chamber to conduct an inquiry “in aid of legislation” into the unbridled corruption scandal. Such inquiries are normally conducted in response to a resolution, or a privilege speech on the floor; this one, however, was done upon the chairman’s own initiative without any prodding from any other source. But after a couple of hearings, the Senate leadership changed. Sen. Vicente Sotto III, a returning former Senate president, replaced Francis Escudero as Senate head, and Marcoleta yielded his blue ribbon post to Lacson.
Under Lacson, who used to run the Philippine National Police during a previous administration, the Blue Ribbon Committee inquiry became the hottest running public affairs program on national television; it became a virtual substitute for the Senate’s plenary sessions as it produced sensational headlines on the public works contractors, DPWH engineers and lawmakers involved in the scandal. None of this changed the terms of reference of the committee inquiry: it remained, as ordained by the Constitution, and described by Marcoleta in the beginning, “an inquiry in aid of legislation.”
But as the inquiry headed for home, and began to prepare its final report to the chamber, the emphasis seemed to shift from corrective “legislation” to “prosecutorial recommendations.” Instead of proposing legislation that would improve the nation’s capability to fight corruption — and show the nation that the senators have learned something from their inquiry in aid of legislation — the draft report that leaked to the press highlighted the need to prosecute some offending senators.
As a former senator, I carry no brief for any sitting senator who is involved in corruption. Their heads should be the first to roll. But this is not the issue here. There is an adequate mechanism for prosecuting corrupt Cabinet members, senators, congressmen and other officials. The law should apply equally to all of them, without any exception or distinction. But if we are going to do the right thing at all, we must follow the rules in every little thing. We cannot and must not allow the Senate to turn an inquiry in aid of legislation into an unauthorized investigation in aid of prosecution.
fstatad@gmail.com
