They are now the country’s most-watched telenovelas. You guessed it — the twin congressional hearings being conducted separately in both legislative chambers, which often appear more like police investigations of criminals than inquiries meant to assist lawmakers in crafting legislation.
On several occasions, the lawmakers have overstepped their bounds. In those moments, the hearings no longer serve their stated purpose of acting “in aid of legislation.” Instead, the proceedings turn into what can best be described as being “in aid of election.”
Others refer to the hearings as being “in aid of prosecution,” as lawmakers seem more focused on establishing the guilt of resource persons or witnesses, effectively becoming both judges and prosecutors. However, it is clear that a legislative inquiry should be “in aid of legislation” — not a trial or a judgment.
What we see now is that when a committee member receives an unfavorable response, they accuse the witness of lying and cite them in contempt. It is true that the power to cite a resource person in contempt is within the rules of a congressional hearing, which is necessary for lawmakers to complete their inquiry in aid of legislation.
This action requires a majority vote of the committee, which can cite any witness for contempt if they refuse to properly answer a question or testify falsely or evasively.
But who dares question a committee member when they cite a witness for contempt without giving them a chance to explain why they should not be cited? This is why we often see witnesses break down and cry on TV. Some end up in hospitals, while others avoid hearings altogether, fearing for their lives. In several instances, due process is clearly violated.
According to the rules, before a resource person is arrested for contempt, they should be given the opportunity to be heard. A witness accused of providing false or evasive testimony must be allowed to explain. But this chance is often denied.
The Supreme Court has intervened, ruling that determining whether testimony is false or evasive “requires an assessment of the totality of evidence” to judge whether a witness is lying or being evasive. This is no longer being followed.
During hearings, lawmakers often claim to have solid proof of a resource person’s involvement in a crime but still pressure the witness to confirm the documents in their possession. Understandably, answering affirmatively could incriminate the witness.
In such situations, the only protection a witness can rely on is their right to remain silent. Lawmakers certainly know that invoking the right against self-incrimination is legally acceptable, as statements made in the hearing could be used in court. Yet, they still violate their own rules.
The Supreme Court intervened again, reiterating that a congressional inquiry must be “in aid of legislation,” conducted in accordance with duly published rules, and — most importantly — that the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries must be respected.
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the acts of the government, even in congressional inquiries. Yet, what we now see in these hearings are lawmakers pressuring witnesses to provide answers that match their expectations.
Some lawmakers go as far as intimidating resource persons, shouting at them, and threatening them with imprisonment. They accuse witnesses of lying when their answers do not align with the committee’s assumptions. So, what is the point of asking a question if the answer will not be accepted anyway?
Lawmakers can extend the duration of these congressional inquiries, and with midterm elections just around the corner, the hearings provide them with free early campaigning on TV, in newspapers, and across internet platforms. It seems these legislative hearings are also “in aid of election.”
