I have received a three-page letter from Atty. Antonio Gallardo, Drilon’s chief of staff and apologize that I could not answer him earlier as I was abroad. Lacson’s speech, which has been described as political muckrucking and woefully inadequate as far as evidence was concerned happened during Drilon’s senate presidency. There are any number of devices or resources that Drilon could have used knowing the motive of the speech. The way it looks, Drilon’s so-called ‘pursuance of the law’ is a smokescreen for ‘a safe position" that would not only postpone the promised debate on constitutional change (which seems to be on top of Drilon’s agenda) it would also court both the majority and minority parties. That is useful for anyone politically ambitious but it does not speak well of leadership of the Senate.
I may not be a constitutional lawyer but common sense tells me that the intent of ‘privilege speech’ is far more noble than Drilon regards it to be. I think the framers of the Constitution looked to privilege speeches that would enable lawmakers to tackle issues of public interest without threat of a legal suit. I do not believe it was intended to be used irresponsibly. As campaign platforms, for instance. An exceptional privilege also demands exceptional responsibility. That is where moral perspective, a strong hand and a capacity to understand nuances could have intervened without ‘defying the law’ that I would have expected of Senator Frank Drilon. Gallardo’s letter says "Mr. Drilon did not know what the speech would be about and heard it not a moment sooner than the rest of his colleagues." Yet he wants me to know that "the senate president had asked the inquiring committees to require Panfilo Lacson to first submit all his evidence before Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo be called to answer the ‘charges’ against him." So which is which – did Drilon have or did he not have foreknowledge of the Lacson speech?
The answer seems to be in the affirmative because further in his letter Gallardo adds that "his proposal (Drilon’s), however, was met with vigorous and stiff opposition from some other members of the committees who wanted to hear the first gentleman immediately."
It seems to me that there is something terribly wrong if the Senate refuses to act on a matter overwhelmingly voted upon by the House of Representatives. There should be a law against such tyrannical arrogance. Surely a vote from the representatives of the people deserve as much respect as Lacson’s privilege speech if Drilon’s concern was truly about the law and the Constitution.
It is good to hear that there is some accountability in the matter of privilege speeches as Gallardo says that "while a senator may be immune from suit in any other place for any speech ostensibly given in connection with his legislative prerogatives, a baseless or malicious speech may well render him liable for disorderly behavior and be suspended or expelled by the Senate upon two-thirds vote of its members. I hope some work is being done on this what with our expensive upkeep of a Senate (brilliantly documented in an ad and repeated by my colleague Jarius Bondoc in his October 10 column "Abolish the Senate? Even the Judges wish so"). I will not repeat the figures but it still shocks me to know "that the cost of keeping the senate is P6.1 billion a year of salaries, supplies, upkeep of P1.3 billion and pork of P4.8 billion?" All this with only 66 bills passed out of 832 bills sent to it for concurrence by the House of Representatives. Think of the schools, hospitals, transport, roads that could be built with that kind of money. If this is not dereliction of duty, I do not know what is. By the way, as an afterthought, and educate me please – is it the chief of staff that is required by the rules of the Senate to write and sign a reply from a senator or senate president for that matter?
It may console you to know that it is not just in the Philippines that the senate is under attack. It is also being downgraded in Australia. Virgina March for Financial Times reports that Australia’s government has also proposed a "constitutional shake-up aimed at reducing the power of the senate to block legislation after becoming increasingly frustrated at its inability to move ahead with its political agenda." Prime Minister John Howard said the changes were needed to prevent the upper house from having a permanent veto over a government’s mandate.
He adds that without such reform, governments will be unable to implement policies which have both a popular mandate and are essential to promoting good government.