Congressional hearings are meant to “aid legislation,” yet the current investigation of former President Rodrigo Duterte appears to be less about drafting laws and more about mounting a thinly veiled prosecution. How lawmakers have conducted their questioning reflects a lack of legal acumen that borders on embarrassing, with inquiries that seem less geared toward fact-finding and more toward political spectacle.
Many of these legislators, some of whom have barely met the qualifications to be in office, use their time in the spotlight to demonstrate either a concerning ignorance of legal principles or an outright disregard for the responsibilities of Congress. Rather than framing questions designed to elicit information for potential legal reform, they engage in lines of questioning that mimic those of a court trial. This tactic not only wastes valuable legislative time and resources but also risks discrediting the authority and purpose of Congress as a lawmaking institution.
The former president, himself a seasoned lawyer and prosecutor, responds to these inquiries with predictable nonchalance, underscoring the mock-trial atmosphere that surrounds these proceedings. Duterte’s background affords him the ability to sidestep questions with ease, either by dismissing them with humor or responding in a manner that reflects the unseriousness with which he seems to regard the hearings. The lawmakers, in turn, appear almost powerless, fumbling in their attempt to hold a seasoned attorney to account without the necessary tools or competence.
This exercise in prosecutorial theater lacks effectiveness and distracts from more pressing legislative issues that demand Congress’s attention. These lawmakers, ostensibly acting on behalf of the people, are instead showcasing their limitations while neglecting urgent national matters—among them, poverty alleviation, economic recovery, and national security. The country can ill afford to see Congress squandering time on what amounts to a politically motivated charade.
If Congress truly seeks to address the legal and ethical issues surrounding the Duterte administration, it would be best served by convening experts, preparing thorough, unbiased inquiries, and ensuring that all actions serve legislative development rather than personal or political vendettas. Only then can such hearings genuinely impact meaningful legislative reforms instead of descending into a futile game of judicial pretension.
