The current outrage among some senators and congressmen against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago?s adherence to the so-called rules of evidence in her committee?s handling of the World Bank report controversy is puzzling.

Some of her colleagues in the Senate have moved last week to get the probe of the controversy out of her economic affairs committee. A sectoral representative in the House broke protocol by calling on Santiago to inhibit herself from the inquiry. Both moves had only one reason: they were peeved by Santiago?s constant use and invoking of the rules of evidence.

The argument of Santiago?s nemeses is simple: the rules of evidence should not be applied since the inquiry is legislative in nature and not judicial.

This is confusing. Why are Santiago?s critics so adverse to the application of the rules of evidence when it is clear that when there is an inquiry in either house of Congress, our lawmakers get to declare parties guilty anyway? Doesn?t that make the process somehow ?judicial? in nature?

To help clear the confusion, we asked some of our lawyer-friends regarding these rules and what is in them that have invited outbursts from the likes of sectoral representative Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel.

Broadly, our lawyer friends explained, the rules of evidence are part of the Rules of Court and they govern what kind of proof can be presented, how and by whom before someone who is trying the facts of the case?such as a judge, for example.

Our lawyer-friends point out that the rules make it difficult for ?hearsay? evidence to be admitted. They prevent a situation where anyone can just tell any story and pass it on as truth.

The view is that Santiago?s adherence to the rules of evidence is making it difficult for the World Bank report to pass the litmus test of credibility.

In fact, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has already warned in a recent article that the World Bank report ?does not seem to measure up to the image it commands in the international political community.?

This is because ?most of the interviewees were contractors with rival vested interests? who offered ?a wild mix of information they claimed to know directly, a lot of impressions and opinions they hold, and mere rumors they heard regarding how public works contracts in the Philippines are supposedly riddled with corruption.?

The PCIJ also warned that it looked like ?minimal efforts were exerted to corroborate the stories told by the interviewees,? most of which were ?contractors with rival interests.?

Maybe, the fear is that if Senator Santiago insists that the tests of the Rules of Evidence are applied, then the World Bank Report?s plethora of hearsay interviews might start looking like a compilation of self-serving stories told by rival contractors.

Now, it looks like Santiago?s nemeses got their way and the probe will no longer be done by her committee but by the Blue Ribbon committee chaired by Senator Richard Gordon.

So, what does this mean now? Does this mean ?hearsay? will now be given much, much more weight? That the credibility and identity of so-called witnesses no longer have to be established? That we must now buy every story dished out by witnesses when they conform to our biases and prejudgment of the issues?

Senator Santiago is being vilified for insisting on the application of the rules of evidence. Okay, so what rule should be applied?

Some lawmakers say that the Senate has its own rules. We don?t know what those rules are, but are they the opposite of the rules of evidence which say that hearsay is inadmissible?

We do not know why her colleagues in the Senate and her critics in the House want to pillory Santiago for her insistence on the rules. Now, they are making it look like it is a crime to be a brilliant lawyer and former trial judge.

But there is another view. Is it possible that she is being punished and pilloried is because her insistence on the need to test the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies has taken the fun out of Senate committee hearings?

These hearings are supposed to be politically charged. They are supposed to parade colorful personalities who will display pathos and take our minds off other pressing concerns.

Santiago has been such a kill-joy. Her insistence on a judicious, sober approach has prevented the appearance of characters like we had during the NBN-ZTE row and the jueteng probe.

Her colleagues have, indeed, made sure she is punished.

She may have lost the round but one thing has to be made clear. As far as the public is concerned, she is viewed as an important authority on procedures, rules and functions of the Senate. It is not forgotten that she has brought her professorial skills to a body that can definitely benefit from her academic and professional background.

Her arch critic in the House had attempted to ridicule her legal brilliance by asking who she is lawyering for.

The representative should be careful with her witticisms.

There were many who prefer a more sober and judicious approach to current issues who answered that question with, ?She is lawyering for us?.