In aid of persecution? | as easy as ABC

Did we, the public, have the right to watch after extreme blurring or pixelation of images, save for the faces of the actors, that private video that turned out to be already so public? Should it have graduated from YouTube to the halls of Congress, confined to an exclusive, media-less session, so that they can say after viewing that that was her and that was him, or that turned out to be a complete hoax?

There seems to be an alignment of opinions on that matter among the congresswomen and my older golf buddies to leave her alone. They are not even talking about the right to privacy but the right to private moments. Alright, it is a Sunday and this column is still for general patronage, so let me get to some points of law and reason.

On private affairs – should public officials be left alone? It is difficult to sometimes find precedents that are all square to the case, but we have come across one interesting case in the US, our democratic model, that can help drive home the point on the right to privacy and connection with work. Postal clerk Mindel was investigated and found to be cohabiting with a very young lady that he was not married to. Whatever he was doing, he was found by the US Civil Service guilty of immoral conduct and unsuitable for federal service.

The Court said that the Constitution sought to protect people in “their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations,” and that “the right to be left alone” is the most comprehensive and valued by civilized men. The Court said the government failed to show a compelling reason why Mindel should live his life according to a special moral code.

The Court also said there is no rational nexus between his conduct and his duties as a government employee. He was not shown to be less efficient, less diligent or less devoted to his duties. What is more interesting is that the Court noted Mindel “was employed in the most insensitive position” – a postal clerk.

In the ongoing Congressional hearings in aid of legislation, the senator could not unfortunately say that her position as Secretary of Justice then was not a sensitive one because that office could really give someone a very bad day or a life of incarceration. It’s not about violating a person’s right to choose who to have amorous relationship with, but it’s the nexus between the alleged relationship and the drug trade. It would have been the climax of the episode if she appeared in the hearings, but her no-show is justifiable. Not only is there an equality of the two houses in Congress (where one could not compel or discipline the other), there is also another right that she can use anyway to not answer questions – the right against self-incrimination.

That hearings in aid of legislation have become “trials by publicity” is not reproachable, it is almost the point – to heed the people’s right to know of matters of public concern. Unlike a court case where the judge must make a guilty or not guilty verdict, Congress is not even compelled to pass legislation after the hearings, not if it does not think it has to.

Unlike court cases where live television can be barred to protect the right of the accused to due process, there is no due process issue in congressional hearings because no one is on trial. Besides, congressmen and senators will not bar live coverage. It’s their “15 minutes” or 15 hours (for that matter) of fame.

So many are asking, what is the point about these ongoing congressional hearings? There are enough laws about drugs, corruption is bad and there is nothing new about that, we know that prison was not meant to be a five-star accommodation for those who can afford it, and all the hearings cannot be about how to have a proper love life.

I think these ongoing hearings are purposeful and can help in law-making. To pick up on one point, the public should know that the DOJ has administrative supervision of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). This means that in theory, the office should know what is going on in the BuCor. While the DOJ’s office may bring to justice all the crimes and corruption that happen in the BuCor, from another vantage point, the DOJ and the BuCor are in the same team. It’s like in the corporate world where the supervisor can castigate the staff, but before management, they team up together to show that they did not really mess up the engagement.

In other words, as it already stands, the DOJ would also have an interest to say that nothing endemically wrong is going on in the prison premises. If the DOJ did not know that New Bilibid Prison is a tax-free special economic zone of sorts, it either did not do a good job supervising or it chose to look the other way.

If one can supervise, investigate, and prosecute under one hat, there will be independence issues. So after these hearings, one legislation that can come out is the designation of an independent, credible agency that can check what is going on in the Bilibid. This can for instance be the Commission on Audit (COA). In the course of examining financial expenditures, it can look into “compliance with laws and rules” as is part of its mandate. Or it can even be another agency, reporting directly to the Office of the President.

So let Congress do its job, but folks, let’s come up with a product after the hearings like a good effective law, and not the grand ones where the rules hide in thick jargon. In the meantime, if other people think it’s entertainment, then take that as fringe benefit. For me, over peanuts and single malt, I will enjoy the show, even as I advocate that everyone, government official or not, deserves his or her day in court.