I Invoke My Right To Know The Right!
“I invoke my right against self-incrimination.”
Aside from the line, “Hindi ko po alam (I don’t know),” this is the common utterance that has been probably overused by celebrated resource persons or witnesses during congressional or senate inquiries on controversial cases. For instance, the most recent to attest at the Senate is Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged Pork Barrel scam mastermind. During her first Senate hearing, she repeatedly used the line to protect herself from being involved in the crime.
What does this right against self-incrimination entail? Who are entitled to this right? When should a witness invoke such right? Can the authorities find other means to gather information even if the witness insists the right?
Firstly, under Section 17 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Lastly, to complement this, under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Rule 115, Section 1 [e], an accused at trial is exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore, a person has the legal right to refuse from answering that can probably involve himself in a particular crime or which can lead to information that can be used against him. In addition, the constitution explains that such right may be claimed not only by an accused but also by the witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
The authorities cannot force the witness to give a word as response to a self-incriminating question. That is why we are bound with this law. However, the problem is that even if the question asked is not really self-incriminating, the witness can still invoke his right. Isn’t it a real serious problem?
Of course, the investigators shall be resourceful enough in digging the truth. They are expected to have other resource persons or documents to support the suspect’s guilt in doing the crime. That is what the government is doing right now. Since they already realized that Napoles hardly tells the truth even if under oath, they shall gather evidences that will give a strong foundation to keep the case going, name the guilty individuals, and close the proceeding.
If the witnesses who testified and will testify every hearing knows that they are innocent, why hesitate to tell the truth? Why overuse the right to self-incrimination? As long as we live, we must become models of honesty. Why bother? At the end of the day, it is we who will realize that indeed, “the truth has set us free.”
Aside from the line, “Hindi ko po alam (I don’t know),” this is the common utterance that has been probably overused by celebrated resource persons or witnesses during congressional or senate inquiries on controversial cases. For instance, the most recent to attest at the Senate is Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged Pork Barrel scam mastermind. During her first Senate hearing, she repeatedly used the line to protect herself from being involved in the crime.
What does this right against self-incrimination entail? Who are entitled to this right? When should a witness invoke such right? Can the authorities find other means to gather information even if the witness insists the right?
Firstly, under Section 17 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Lastly, to complement this, under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Rule 115, Section 1 [e], an accused at trial is exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore, a person has the legal right to refuse from answering that can probably involve himself in a particular crime or which can lead to information that can be used against him. In addition, the constitution explains that such right may be claimed not only by an accused but also by the witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
The authorities cannot force the witness to give a word as response to a self-incriminating question. That is why we are bound with this law. However, the problem is that even if the question asked is not really self-incriminating, the witness can still invoke his right. Isn’t it a real serious problem?
Of course, the investigators shall be resourceful enough in digging the truth. They are expected to have other resource persons or documents to support the suspect’s guilt in doing the crime. That is what the government is doing right now. Since they already realized that Napoles hardly tells the truth even if under oath, they shall gather evidences that will give a strong foundation to keep the case going, name the guilty individuals, and close the proceeding.
If the witnesses who testified and will testify every hearing knows that they are innocent, why hesitate to tell the truth? Why overuse the right to self-incrimination? As long as we live, we must become models of honesty. Why bother? At the end of the day, it is we who will realize that indeed, “the truth has set us free.”
Comments
Post a Comment