Laws and their enforcers

The controversies surrounding the implementation of some laws show us almost everything wrong with how our officials are running the government and why bad governance has been our sorry plight. They prove that our problem lies not in the system but in the people running the system of government we now have particularly in the legislative and executive branches.

Laws are enacted primarily to cover more specific and detailed aspects of the ever changing situations in our society that cannot be covered by our fundamental law or constitution which is broader, briefer and more or less permanent. These legislations are intended as the “implementing rules” of the provisions in our Constitution that are not usually self-executing.

In our system of government the enactment of laws entails going through a legislative mill otherwise known as Congress composed of 250 members of the House of Representatives and 24 members of the Senate. The proposed bills are processed in both houses where public hearings and inquiries are normally conducted “in aid of legislation”. Then after their formulation, they have to undergo three readings on separate days of plenary session where they will be subject to debate, amendments and corrections if any. If versions of bills passed by both houses are in conflict, a bicameral conference committee composed of members of both houses will then have to review and reconcile the conflicting versions. Thus it can even be said that bills usually pass through three “Houses” before they are sent to the President for final approval.

Going through this rigorous and thorough process and the supposed close scrutiny of about 274 legislators in both houses, should have produced well crafted and almost impeccable pieces of legislations that could be implemented without so much hassle and controversy. During the early years of Congress, there were such laws. Unfortunately this is no longer the case with respect to laws enacted by Congress in the latter years when movie stars, sports heroes, TV and radio celebrities, wives, children and other relatives of retiring politicians have been elected as our legislators.

The current crop of legislations coming out of our legislative mill obviously contains serious flaws, ambiguities and loopholes that necessitates the issuance of implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) by the government agencies task to enforce them otherwise they will not be properly implemented, mis-implemented or not implemented at all. Hence the accepted practice now is that laws passed by Congress which are supposed to serve as implementing rules of the Constitution also require their own implementing rules and regulations before they can be enforced. This is a practice that makes laws inutile. They cannot be used or invoked unless they have IRRs.

And this is where the multifarious problems arise. Most often the government agencies tasked to implement the law promulgate the IRRs according to their own interpretation of the law which in itself is flawed or which may even be beyond intent and meaning of the law. Hence the IRRs themselves sometimes vary the law or supersede it as to seemingly become another law itself. In fact many cases are resolved by the courts relying more on the IRRs than on the law itself.

It may also happen that the executive department takes its own sweet time in issuing the IRRs or in implementing it. Hence even if there are good laws that would benefit the people and serve public interest they can still be used for political purposes, protection of vested interest or promotion of self-interest. This is best exemplified by two events happening in our country now.

One is the controversy surrounding the Cheaper Medicines Law where Malacañang has even been accused of receiving bribes from a pharmaceutical company or of conspiring with drug companies in circumventing the law. The law is simple and easily implementable. It fixes a price cap on essential drugs that would make them more affordable to the greater mass of our populace who are poor. The Law was enacted on June 6, 2008 while its IRR came out in November of the same year. All that is needed for its implementation is for Malacañang to issue an Executive Order containing the list of medicines covered by the Maximum Drug Retail Price. Certainly it would not have taken eight months for Malacañang to do that. Hence its inaction has given the charges being hurled against the President some semblance of truth. And its latest explanation of allowing the drug firms to voluntarily bring down their prices only put more credibility on said charges. It would seem that drug companies are given the right to decide when they would comply with the law on the pretext that Malacañang would not want to impose price control as it would drive away investors. This is really quite suspicious if not absurd.

Another incident is the move to reduce the number of buses in EDSA. Under the existing Transportation and Public Service Law, public service bus operators are supposed to be issued franchises to be able to operate. These franchises are issued only after public hearings have been conducted where the applicant must show that he has buses, garages and other facilities as well as the capital to operate a transportation business and provide transportation to the commuting public. In EDSA, LTFRB records show that there are only 21franchise holders but there are 6,000 buses plying the route. Obviously there are franchise holders given authority to operate but without any buses or garage at all. All they have to do is to lease their franchise to those who have the buses and facilities and thus earn money every month by the snap of their fingers. One “franchise holder” reportedly close to the powers that be with authority to operate 100 buses is said to earn about half a million a month even without any garage or any single bus at all. Now that the current LTFRB Chairman is poised to reduce the buses in EDSA by 4,000, this franchise holder stands to lose that lucrative business. And the betting is that the LTFRB Chairman may find himself without any position or kicked upstairs like his predecessors who attempted to make similar moves.

These are just two incidents now in the limelight which demonstrates that good laws do not necessarily mean good governance. After all everything still depends on the officials implementing these laws.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]