Grandstanding in Congressional Hearings

By: Atty. Joey V. Garcia
Founder and Senior Managing Partner, GERA Law

Of late, there has been a pressing concern that has grown more noticeable in our legislative proceedings, the issue of grandstanding!

Thus, we delve into another troubling phenomenon that has become increasingly apparent within the halls of Congress. Both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, we have witnessed instances where elected officials, tasked with the noble duty of legislation, engage in behavior that appears more aligned with grandstanding than constructive inquiry. This raises critical questions about the true purpose of these actions. Are they really in aid of legislation, or do they serve other, more self-serving ends?

Congressional hearings are meant to serve as a tool for legislators to gather information, investigate matters of national concern, and ultimately craft laws that benefit the public. However, the integrity of these hearings can be called into question when some lawmakers deviate from this objective. Instead of asking thoughtful, insightful, and constructive questions that help clarify issues and guide legislative action, we often see questions that seem illogical, irrelevant, or even nonsensical. This trend of grandstanding, where representatives appear more concerned with making a spectacle than with substance,raises the concern of whether they are truly fulfilling their duties as lawmakers.

Congressional hearings or inquiries in aid of legislation are a constitutional mechanism by which the legislative branch exercises its oversight function and assists in the formulation of laws. This power is derived from Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Specifically, the nature of the questioning often seems detached from the core purpose of these inquiries, to aid in legislation, and whether this behavior truly serves the interests of the public.

​The core principle here is that these inquiries must always be in aid of legislation, a phrase that is often emphasized but, regrettably, sometimes misapplied.
It is worth reminding our esteemed elected lawmakers that Congress is not a court of law. Its function is to create legislation, not to adjudicate guilt or innocence. This raises a key question, if some members of Congress truly believe in the merits of their inquiry, why not leave the adjudication to the courts of justice? Competent legal experts, trained in the art of questioning and equipped with the legal tools to determine truth, are far better suited for such inquiries. Why, then, do some lawmakers insist on bombarding witnesses with irrelevant, sometimes absurd questions under the guise of legislative fact-finding?

If these inquiries delve into matters that are better suited for legal adjudication, why not allow the competent courts to take charge? Trained lawyers, judges, and the legal system are better equipped to handle cases that require thorough examination and interpretation of the law. Rather than attempting to duplicate the court's role, Congress should focus on its core mission, legislating!

While the legislature has broad investigatory powers, it must respect the separation of powers. It cannot overstep its bounds by encroaching upon the functions of the executive or judiciary. Their inquiries cannot be used to determine guilt or innocence, which is the purview of the judiciary.

The inquiries should not be used as a tool for political harassment or personal vendettas.
These are among the parameters of the inquiries.

Is it really in “Aid of Legislation?” The million-dollar question is: What beneficial outcome could arise from such grandstanding? In theory, congressional inquiries should uncover facts that inform better legislation. However, if the questioning lacks logic, reasoning, or focus, it fails to fulfill this purpose. Instead, it risks wasting time and resources, time that could be spent on more pressing legislative matters and resources that could be better allocated to serve the public interest. Furthermore, this behavior often distracts from the real jobs entrusted to these officials by their constituents, who voted for them in good faith, expecting them to address critical national issues.

Too often, the public watches as individuals invited to testify before Congress are subjected to bizarre, unrelated, and sometimes embarrassing lines of questioning. While these exchanges may appear amusing to some, especially those watching at home, they are concerning to many others, especially to those who understand the legislative process.

One of the most harmful effects of grandstanding is it will immensely waste the time and resources of the government. Congressional hearings are costly, not just in terms of time but also financially. Every minute wasted on irrelevant questioning detracts from the time that could be spent on meaningful dialogue and legislative work. When lawmakers ask questions that appear foolish or out of touch, they undermine their own credibility and the institution of Congress as a whole. The public expects a level of decorum, intelligence, and seriousness in these proceedings.

When elected officials fail to deliver on the mandate they were given, to serve the people and create meaningful laws,it becomes a betrayal of the trust placed in them by the electorate. Grandstanding may provide short-term visibility or name recall for upcoming elections, but it erodes public confidence in the legislative process. The electorate deserves better from those they have entrusted with power. Lawmakers should be focusing on crafting laws that benefit society, not using congressional hearings as platforms for self-promotion or political gamesmanship.

If the goal of congressional questioning is to ferret out the truth and inform better legislation, then the process must be grounded in logic, reasoning, and a genuine desire to uncover facts. If this is not happening, it is time to reconsider the purpose and conduct of these inquiries. Congress should focus on the real work of governance, addressing national issues, improving laws, and serving the public good. Anything less than that is a disservice to the people and a waste of the opportunity to make meaningful change.

When they spend time asking nonsensical or out-of-context questions, they divert from their primary responsibility. Worse, they risk turning these critical inquiries into a spectacle or mockery of the legislative process.

In sum, are these grandstanding tactics really in aid of legislation, or are they a distraction from the real work that needs to be done? The public deserves thoughtful, intelligent leadership, not a circus. If these hearings are not serving their intended purpose, then it is time to put an end to this charade and refocus on the true responsibilities of Congress. Only then can we restore trust in our institutions and ensure that the work of the people is carried out in earnest.

​Inquiries in aid of legislation should focus on eliciting the facts, clarifying issues, and formulating better laws. But when grandstanding becomes the norm, one cannot help but wonder, is this truly about legislation, or is it about visibility? For some, these outlandish questions may serve the purpose of increasing their name recall or public visibility, perhaps in anticipation of upcoming elections. It is no secret that in the political arena, visibility often equates to votes.

Lawmakers must strive to ask intelligent, relevant, and well-reasoned questions. They should aim to ferret out the truth, not create a spectacle!

The inquiries should be conducted objectively, avoiding unnecessary bias or political motivations. The aim should be to gather facts that will guide the crafting of sound public policy.

While congressional inquiries in the Philippines are an important tool for legislative oversight and law-making, they are subject to constitutional and legal limitations. They must be conducted with fairness, relevance to legislation, and respect for individual rights and the separation of powers.