THE Senate is not a court, except perhaps when sitting in an impeachment case. Its investigations are in aid of legislation.

When, in the course of its investigation, it discovers sufficient basis to conclude that a crime has been committed, it recommends criminal prosecution against all those who, according to the evidence, may have been involved.

It does not file the complaint. It does not conduct the preliminary investigation. It does not file the information in Court. It does not issue the warrant of arrest against the accused. It does not conduct the trial nor render a verdict.

It has no power to discharge an accused so that he may become a state witness.

Sun.Star accepts donations for victims of Typhoon Ondoy

All the hue and cry over the findings of the Senate Blue Ribbon committee that investigated the NBN-ZTE scandal could have been avoided had the critics taken the time to examine the nature of the Senate investigation as well as its report before opening their mouths.

The keyword here is “recommend.” Because it did not have the authority to do so, the Senate did not impeach President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. For the same reason, it did not file criminal charges against her husband and many others, including the so-called whistleblowers.

What the Upper House did was to recommend the impeachment of Mrs. Arroyo and the criminal prosecution of Jose Miguel Arroyo, Joey de Venecia and Rodolfo Lozada Jr., among others, by the House of Representatives and the Ombudsman, respectively.

Lozada and de Venecia probably feel dishonored with their being lumped in the same group with Arroyo and former Comelec chair Benjamin Abalos, which is why they and their backers are howling in protest against the Senate committee report.

What they seem to have conveniently forgotten is that they were part of the conspiracy, too, and decided to squeal on the others only when greed turned things sour.

I don’t buy the b.s. that whistleblowers will now be discouraged from ratting on their co-conspirators because of the Senate recommendation. In the first place, isn’t a whistleblower one that exposes a corrupt act or any violation of law out of a sense of duty, not of betrayal?

Look, if a gang member surrenders to the police because his conscience was bothering him, is he, by that act alone, absolved from liability for the crimes that he had participated in? Who is entitled to more leniency, the penitent robber or the angry double-crossed co-conspirator?

That the Senate did not, as Lozada and his backers must have wished it had done, establish a hierarchy of guilt among those involved in the scandal is understandable. It didn’t have to.

That function ultimately belongs to the court.

That, of course, can take a long time. In fact, there is no absolute guarantee that the Ombudsman will heed the Senate and prosecute all the persons named in its report. If the Ombudsman chooses to ignore the recommendation, then I suppose everybody in the Senate’s “hit list” will be happy although some may be happier than the others.

It is still a safe bet though that the Ombudsman will give full credit to the Senate’s exhaustive investigation, agree with its findings and eventually elevate the case to the Sandiganbayan.

In that event, Lozada and de Venecia should thank the Senate for providing a platform from which they can continue their crusade and a forum through which they can seek vindication.

Indeed, how sweet it would be for them if, on the strength of their recollection of what happened, the Sandiganbayan acquits them and convicts all the other co-accused.

(frank.otherside@yahoo.com)