The appearance of Napoles in the Senate hearing of the PDAF scam showed that the Senate can do the investigation without her. Of course Napoles will invoke self incrimination. I would. Especially that she really has pending cases in court. Fairness also means she has the right not to be convicted more than once for the same crime. We are civilized people right? — we dont’t do gory. But it doesn’t mean that all avenues to get to truth is lost.
The session yesterday only served to reveal the investigation committee’s failure to do its job since the hearing started. If it did, it should’ve presented Napoles and her counsel results of its own investigations, for example the actual number of her bank accounts. And cross examined the Senators and members of Congress following the testimonies of the witnesses instead of turning to Napoles and asking her all the wrong questions ie. all answerable by yes or no. In short, the Committee does not have a game plan, which makes you wonder. Once again, how many days has this circus been going on?
Senator Miriam Santiago was right: the senate investigation is an administrative case meaning it is an investigation of members of the Senate. Napoles is secondary. The Committee should’ve long ago pounded on the named Senators as to how for example based on the COA report certain prescribed processes were bypassed by them; ordered independent forensics of the signatures; etcetera. In other words a fool proof game plan. That this was not done or demonstrated up to the much anticipated session yesterday indicates breakdown of the institution, the failure of democratic process, abuse of public trust and the triumph of that which has put to death national heroes time and time again.
Taxpayers should first cry not for the abolishment of PDAF but rather for justice to run its course. The rest will follow. A Senate that upholds justice is trusted to uphold democratic process PDAF or no PDAF. The reason why the scam reached devilish scale is that no one among these public officials had the public servant’s conscience to stand for what is right. Instead, it took a certain private citizen, employee of Napoles, to spill the beans. Still, despite Luy’s show of courage spurred on by vengeance perhaps (anger in this case is beneficial), the Senate appears tight lipped as ever. When you have this sort of institution, the nation’s future turns several shades of bleak.