Here are the main points of Payne’s arguments:
Of the 10 most transparently governed countries in the world with almost non existent to very low perceived corruption (as measured by Transparency International), 9 have a parliamentary system. You may be further interested to know that of those 9 countries, 7 have unicameral parliamentary systems while the other two, of course, each have a bicameral system – Australia and Austria. Furthermore, unicameral parliamentary systems around the world outnumber bicameral parliaments by almost double – 115 unicameral parliaments to 64 bicameral parliaments, as of December 2001.
Now, before you rush to tell me I have shot down my own argument, let me hasten to add two points regarding the foregoing information: (1) With the exception of one country mentioned (Australia) in the top 10, all the others are small countries by population size in comparison. In fact, the other 9 countries all have populations of less than 10 million. (2) It is also a fact that the vast majority of the 115 unicameral parliaments around the world are to be found in countries with small to medium size populations (up to 15 million). Certainly, there are countries with large populations (in excess of 30 million) that have a unicameral parliament and are governed successfully to a greater or lesser degree.
Having said all this, obviously it is up to each country to decide what works best for the governing of its people. However, it has been suggested by political scientists, and other experts in the study and/or knowledge of government systems, that the bigger a country is in terms of population the more efficient and transparent a government is under a bicameral system. It also allows a greater representation of the people and provides more checks and balances against corruption and bad legislation detrimental to the well being of the country. Small to medium population countries can provide adequate electoral representation with a unicameral parliament and many employ a committee system to do the reviewing of legislation before it’s passed into law.
This finally brings me to the situation in the Philippines. Let’s not forget that the population here is now over 80 million and climbing fast. It really is not possible to adequately govern the entire country and take into account everyone’s needs and concerns with a centralized unicameral parliament for a population of this size.
Quite apart from changing to a parliamentary system, if this country eventually progresses to a federal parliamentary system – which it really should if the country is to be governed truly efficiently – whereby provinces (or states) are set up with their own autonomous provincial/state governments (unicameral only) to manage local affairs and issues – then there will need to be a national parliament with two houses. One house will be the "peoples" house (lower) and the other (upper) will have provincial/state representatives. The latter will act for looking out for the interests of the province/state each member represents. This house will also be mainly one of review and amendment of legislation coming from the lower house.
There is no reason why in a new parliamentary system the upper house cannot be radically restructured so that the main legislating body of government remains the lower house while the upper house acts in the manner I have already described. This certainly is not difficult and should satisfy both the unicameral and bicameral supporters.
It is not widely understood that the abolition of the Senate has less to do with a lazy or grandstanding body as it has with the inherent defect of having two Houses doing the same thing in lawmaking. The rivalry is inevitable. If the Senate were to accept laws as made by the House, it becomes irrelevant and if it did not, as it has happened here, then we have the ensuing rivalry on which version goes. The effect of the impasse is to create still another layer – the bicameral – to settle their differences.
This cumbersome structure has led to the most Byzantine lawmaking at the expense of the progress of the nation. Payne means well but the question remains: would the Senate accept a diminished role? Perhaps we should stop using the expression " abolish the senate" when what we really mean is unicameral legislature to save time and money.
The nation cannot afford the rivalry between two lawmaking bodies when it badly needs to feed, house, clothe and find jobs for its galloping populace, let alone catch up with countries with efficient unicameral legislatures.
Maybe we should call lawmakers senators instead of members of Parliament as they do in Poland. But that is just semantics. It is the inevitable rivalry between two lawmaking bodies with equal powers that is the problem. The anger directed at the Senate is a result of this rivalry.
This cumbersome and destructive lawmaking is what Filipinos are up against. It is not political theory but fact. The Philippines can save unaudited billions without an added layer of lawmaking immediately. The Senate is maintained at the cost of billions by the taxpayer. Although it has a yearly pork barrel of P200 million, the Senate has passed only 20 laws in the last two years, Worse, the system has developed an undeserved presumption that the Senate is the "training ground" for presidents. That can make anyone cry looking at the quality of some of its present members. I am not surprised if the 1.7 million-member ULAP (United Local Authorities) should be its most vocal critic. Being the government closest to the people, they are also the first to suffer from the legislative impasse.
To go back to Mr. Payne, for the moment the debate in the Philippines is not about what good things a second house can do but the bad things it has done. It has been a disaster. Maybe we can think of a restructured Senate at some distant future. Today we need the breathing space before any attempt is made to assign a more useful role for a second body for oversight, instead of a rival legislative power. The task now is to institute more ways of check and balance, other than the party system inherent in a parliamentary system. A constitutional court, empowered public lobbyists, referendums are just some ways used by unicameral parliamentary governments. What is clear is that we cannot afford a senate today, even one restructured, if the intention of constitutional reform is get the nation cracking.