The IIRC "First" Report: A Waste of Paper

First off, I don't have a copy of the "first" report of the IIRC on the Manila hostage incident of Aug. 23. They said it's on the web, but I didn't bother to get it since it's incomplete anyway.

Secondly, the IIRC report is also just a "first" report. The IIRC would still be submitting a "second" report to the President. By this scheme, they can always change everything. It would then be a waste of time going over the "first" report.

Thirdly, that the IIRC would be submitting a second report only came about because of public outcry over the first report. While IIRC chair Sec. De Lima bravely put up the face of standing by their report-Sec. Robredo has again disappeared by the way-she was quick to attack criticisms as "unfair" and "baseless," but with the promise of a second report.

In other words, we don't really have a true report at this time.

For that matter, I don't actually trust the IIRC for these two main reasons:

One, the IIRC's composition is already an anomaly. Its Vice Chair is "Acting" DILG Secretary Robredo. By law, he is supposed to be the one ultimately responsible for the government's handling of the hostage incident despite his hand washing that PNoy limited his functions to local governments. Verily, in that case, an honorable man not dying for a cabinet position would have asked that the DILG be split first into two departments so there would be no confusion on duties and responsibilities. Whatever his posturing, Sec. Robredo has a conflict of interest and presumably would have to save his own skin first-as readily seen in his attacks on Sen. Escudero on the latter's comments about likely non-confirmation of Robredo by the Commission on Appointments.

Second, the IIRC conducted themselves inappropriately during the public hearings. Each one of them would often follow his or her questioning with comments and even debates with the resource persons or witnesses on deck. It is elementary that when your duty is to gather facts, you never inject your own opinions or conclusions just yet. You simply ask a witness for what he has actually done, seen, heard, felt, tasted, and smelled as well as whatever information he or she may have or has obtained. You don't even ask for his or her opinion or conclusions unless invited as an expert. You say your piece in the end when you come up with your report.

Thankfully, PNoy was wise enough to have his presidential legal team review the IIRC report. Well, If I were with them, I would probably order the IIRC to first complete their report. Indeed, like in school, the IIRC should be given an "incomplete" grade for now. But then again, the IIRC has already lost its credibility further.

A new body is in order or PNoy's own legal team should simply take over.