Time to change

When our present Constitution was being framed in 1987, a single, unicameral legislative body that would effectively abolish the Senate was one of the major changes introduced before the Constitutional Commission tasked to come up with a new Charter. The proponents of unicameralism believed that with only one legislative body we could save a lot of taxpayers’ money not only because we will be getting rid of the useless, repetitive legislative process in enacting laws under a bicameral system but more importantly because we would be spared of the enormous expenses involved in the operation and maintenance of two Legislative Chambers. Besides, with a simplified set-up, the legislative process would move faster and more efficiently and it would be easier to pinpoint responsibility for the kind of laws coming out of the legislative mill.

But as it turned out, a slight majority of the framers (the voting could have gone either way) still believed that our country needs Senators who are elected nationwide to provide a national outlook on legislations as against the narrower and limited views of Congressmen who are elected by district. The constitutional commissioners thought that while the legislative process is more expensive under a bicameral system, it was worth the cost because we were at least assured of quality legislations since bills would undergo the careful scrutiny of an Upper Chamber manned by brilliant and more experienced lawmakers, before they are enacted into laws.

Furthermore, with the wisdom, statesmanship and independence of Senators who had previously sat in that august chamber, the framers believed that the principle of separation of powers would be better preserved if the Senate would not be abolished. In fact the past record of that body shows that most of its members could not be controlled by Malacañang. Indeed, the common view at that time was that every elected Senator is a Presidential timber because the Senate was the best training ground for national leadership.

During those halcyon years of the Senate, it was really awe-inspiring to see and hear the likes of Osmeña, Roxas, Laurel, Recto, Lopez, Tañada, Osias, Pecson, Rodrigo, Tolentino, Padilla, Puyat, Pelaez, Kalaw, Garcia, Macapagal, Aquino, and Diokno displaying their parliamentary skills and brilliance in the Senate session hall. This impressive roster of past Senators convinced the framers of the 1987 Constitution that our country still needs the Senate.

Unfortunately however, some Senators of today give us the very reason for the abolition of the Senate and why the Senate is no longer needed now. They have, to say the least, miserably failed to live up to the expectations of the Constitutional Commissioners who decided to stick to a bicameral Congress. The recent actuations and behavior of some of them at the session hall prove once and for all that the Senate should be abolished and that it is for the good of our country to have only one legislative body.

During my student days, I always made it a point to go to the Senate Session Hall whenever I had time to watch with excitement the proceedings of that body. It was truly a great privilege and very edifying to be there and witness the brilliant exchanges of arguments and the gentlemanly conducts of the Senators. I thought that I was learning as much as I learned in the classroom just being there, not only in theory but in actual practice. It was for me one of the best ways to be educated in good manners and right conduct as well as in unselfish leadership and dedicated public service.

Sad to say, gone were those days; and there are no indications at all that they will come back with the present composition of our Senate and the kind of electoral process that we now practice in choosing them. Not only have we elected celebrities whose main qualification is their familiar face on the big and small screens as well as their catchy and unforgettable names. We have likewise placed in that body certain personalities with bloated egos, inflated pride and offensive self righteousness. Never has there been such debilitating partisanship in that body than at present. It is composed of two groups only: the die-hard lackeys of Malacañang and the staunch oppositionists who have been at loggerheads and in constant word war.

The recent incident involving the members of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce (JFC) clearly supports this observation. These foreigners may really have no business in meddling with our affairs especially in the enactment or amendment of our laws. But to invite them at a hearing and then brusquely reprimand them, bully or harass them and prevent them from speaking out, is simply unbecoming of a legislative body. This is quite “strange” indeed.

To be sure, this is not the first time that some of our Senators have displayed such kind of treatment of resource persons invited to their hearings. There have been so many incidents in the past when witnesses have been brow beaten, harassed and even insulted with churlish language simply because our “honorable” Senators disliked their answers or could not elicit what they want from these people in clear violation of their rights.

It would therefore be for the greater good of our country and people if the Senate is abolished. We could have a leaner and smaller but more efficient unicameral body composed of representatives elected by regions.