Congress has legitimate basis for citing OVP official for contempt | The Manila Times

I HAVE, on previous occasions in this space, criticized the behavior of members of Congress, from senators to members of the House of Representatives, with regard to their resource persons. I have repeatedly reminded members of Congress that their job is not prosecutorial, even on matters where they are performing their oversight functions. While the duty to conduct hearings is constitutionally mandated, the primordial purpose of Congressional inquiries is to aid legislation. Congress can conduct hearings to inquire about the need to pass laws to address an existing problem or to amend or repeal existing laws.

However, Congress can also conduct hearings pursuant to the performance of its oversight functions, where it seeks to inquire into how laws are being implemented. Budget hearings are actually conducted both in aid of legislation, considering that the budget of government agencies is legislated by Congress, and pursuant to its oversight functions. Budget utilization of agencies vis-à-vis the funds allocated to them by Congress in previous years is a legitimate subject of inquiry simply because they are technically a matter pertaining to how the budget, as law, was implemented. Hence, the scrutiny of how the confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP), as well as the Department of Education (DepEd), is a valid exercise by Congress of its power to conduct hearings both in aid of legislation and pursuant to its oversight functions.