THE Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, more popularly known as the “blue ribbon committee,” is tasked with investigating wrongdoings of government officials and government agencies “in aid of legislation.”

In pursuit of its mission, however, some members of the committee have become overzealous and overcome with passion to the point of accusing witnesses as wrongdoers. It exceeded its bounds when individuals it invited as resource persons were interrogated as if they were common criminals.

Overall, the blue ribbon committee’s chairman and members have more than ably performed their duty. But there are instances where the reputation of the innocent and falsely accused have been tainted.

And these instances fall into a pattern. There is, therefore, a need to steer the blue ribbon committee back to its

mission to pursue inquiries in aid of legislation.

Both the Senate and House of Representatives can call for “hearings in aid of legislation,” probes designed to help craft new laws or amend existing ones to better serve the public good.

The chairmanship of the blue ribbon committee is a much soughtafter position in the Senate. The panel’s chair wields considerable influence in the chamber.

Despite its perceived clout, the panel has no prosecutorial powers; it can only recommend to the proper government agency what action to take.

The committee’s rules protect witnesses from self-incrimination, and resource persons can bring in legal counsel when they testify. The committee also publishes the rules of procedures and informs concerned persons about all these before placing any witness under oath.

But there are instances when the committee overstepped its mandate in trying to obtain information from witnesses, resulting in tragic consequences.

In 2011, the blue ribbon committee summoned former Defense secretary Angelo Reyes to answer allegations by a former budget officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) that he received P50 million as a “send-off” gift from the AFP upon his retirement.

Reyes had repeatedly denied accusations, but a member of the committee, Sen. Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes 4th, bore down on his former military superior, saying he had to put Reyes “in his proper place,” and pressuring him to admit to the charge.

Reyes asked that Trillanes inhibit from the hearings, but his call was denied, and Trillanes even threatened to have him and his lawyer cited in contempt.

Reyes, distraught after having his sterling military reputation raked over coals, committed suicide while visiting the grave of his mother.

The committee eventually cleared Reyes, but his name has already been sullied.

Trillanes has never apologized to the Reyes family. It was left to the military to accord Reyes the honors he had earned through decades of service by laying him to rest at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Last year, it was former Agriculture undersecretary Leocadio Sebastian who came under intense interrogation by the blue ribbon panel.

Sebastian, having acquired an executive order giving him authority to act on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s behalf, approved the importation of 300,000 metric tons of sugar in July.

The President, however, reconsidered his decision and directed that the importation order be revoked.

Sebastian obeyed the directive and a different import arrangement was later created.

In spite of the document-backed evidence that Sebastian and his subordinates had, at every step, done exactly what the President’s orders required, they were accused of corruption and even of forging the Chief Executive’s signature.

Because sugar was in short supply and had become expensive, the blue ribbon committee apparently needed a scapegoat to heap the blame on.

Like Reyes, Sebastian, a respected government official with decades of service, went through a gauntlet as he testified before the panel.

He was forced to resign and has had difficulty shaking off the perception of corruption.

The blue ribbon recommended that Sebastian be charged with corruption. But after reviewing his case, the Office of the Executive Secretary found that Sebastian and his colleagues in the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), administrator Hermenegildo Serafica and former members Aurelio Gerardo Valderrama Jr. and Roland Beltran, had acted responsibly, and cleared them.

The blue ribbon was also eager to get to the bottom of the scam involving the questionable awarding of a P10.8-billion contract for pandemic-related medical supplies to Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp., a recently formed company with a mere P625,000 in paid-up capital.

Some of the supplies were reportedly undelivered while others were of substandard quality.

The blue ribbon committee summoned persons connected with Pharmally Pharmaceutical, officials of the Department of Health, of the Procurement Service-Department of Budget and Management, and of the Department of Transportation/ Philippine National Railways.

The hearings plodded on for months, dragging into the controversy prominent entrepreneur and political aspirant Rose Nono Lin and her Chinese businessman spouse Wei Xiong “Jeffrey” Lin.

The Lin couple had the misfortune of having a coincidental connection with Pharmally, and had to struggle to restore their reputation.

Rose and Jeffrey Lin found themselves caught in the blue ribbon committee’s crosshairs for the flimsiest of reasons: they were associated with a different, wholly unrelated enterprise called Pharmally Biological and Pharmaceutical Co., who happened to have common directors with the Pharmally in question, a situation not uncommon among close-knit Chinese businesses.

While Rose Lin was indeed the former chief financial officer and corporate treasurer of Pharmally Biological, that company had nothing to do with Pharmally Pharmaceutical, a medical supplies distribution corporation, specifically servicing the state.

Rose Lin had never had any position or involvement with Pharmally Pharmaceutical, and the connection of her husband to that firm was purely tangential.

Jeffrey Lin had loaned money to his friend and Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. financier Michael Yang, to be repaid with interest. To ensure repayment, the husband had himself designated as a signatory of the checks of Pharmally Pharmaceutical until he had recovered his investment, a common practice in transactions of this nature.

He did not, however, take on any role of managing the affairs of the company and did not keep himself apprised of its dealings beyond what he could infer from the checks presented for his approval.

Despite attending most of the hearings in which she was subpoenaed, and in spite of presenting evidence of having no involvement in the contractual dealings or daily management of Pharmally Pharmaceutical, Rose Lin and her husband were summarily accused of profiting from the corporation’s allegedly illicit activities; she was immortalized in online memes as the woman who wakes up daily to find new luxury cars in her garage, courtesy of controversial government contracts.

The Senate hearings even resulted in the incredible and completely unsubstantiated accusation, leveled by dishonorably discharged intelligence officer Eduardo Acierto, that her husband was actually the notorious drug lord, Allan Lim.

While the Lins’ reputation was left in tatters by erroneous and maliciously false accusations, the blue ribbon committee’s investigation did not result in any corrective legislation, or even a recommendation for further judicial proceedings or investigations against the company or any of the persons accused.

Two of the senators involved declined to sign the committee’s final report, preventing it from being presented to the Senate plenary; with the end of the 18th Congress on June 30, 2022.

The entire affair ended as well with nothing to show after months of rancorous public hearings but damage to innocent reputations that would be, under other circumstances, likely grounds for the filing of a libel complaint.

In the aftermath of the Pharmally Pharmaceutical hearings, it is vital to take a hard look at a fallible Senate system that, while well-intentioned, has been prone to harming the innocent and sidetracking the best interests of the Filipino people.

What has become clear is that some members of the blue ribbon committee clearly misunderstand, or willfully disregard, the purpose of that body and their role in it. They also disregard the role and legal status of witnesses before the committee — as resource persons providing factual information “in aid of legislation” and not as suspects in a criminal investigation.

There is a need to improve the behavior of members of the committee in order that they carry out their task with the proper decorum and propriety the function of the committee demands.

However, regulating behavior and attitudes is difficult, and so, the need is to address shortcomings in the system that allow the undesirable behavior and attitudes to be expressed.

Some recommendations that have been made include limiting the press coverage of blue ribbon investigations. Regulating the participation of media outlets to balance the citizens’ right to information with maintaining the integrity of the proceedings is common practice elsewhere in the world.

Another suggestion is to further curb the quasi-judicial power of the blue ribbon committee to detain uncooperative witnesses in contempt of Congress. This could, perhaps, be achieved with stricter implementing rules and regulations, or possibly even by removing that authority altogether.

Finally, there must be a way to repair reputational damage and losses suffered by those falsely implicated, or unfairly smeared by lawmakers’ comments and resulting media reports. It is generally accepted under the principle of parliamentary immunity that proceedings of Congress are immune from charges such as libel.

Even though that is an issue that neither House of Congress would be anxious to investigate “in aid of legislation,” that may need to change, at least, to some degree.

To perfect an imperfect system, a formal motion must be made for the wrongfully accused to be exonerated and compensated as much as those with willful wrongdoing must be indicted and convicted.