House of mirrors

In a place where the nation confronts the most important political challenges to its continued survival, no magic formula has proved more practical than the principle of majority rules. At the House of Representatives, issues are resolved when more favor an option over the wishes of the less. This framework facilitates the making of decisions and, equally important, it guards against minorities holding sway. Minority wins is the antithesis of democracy.

The House is intended to be a reflection of society’s democratic culture. There are times, however, when it turns and shines that reflection inward. Like a House of mirrors. The distortion may surprise you and make your image seem a more or less fair version of yourself.

This shock is doubly startling when voiced by members of the House majority on major catharsis mode – like Deputy Speaker Miro Quimbo who called the chamber he led with Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez “a freight train with no debate, no opposition, no discussion.” What did he see in his mirror?

New House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is no stranger to changing majorities and minorities. She has seen how high the mountain and how low the valley. We recall many things about GMA. But, of late, what we will not forget is how she was stripped of her deputy speakership in 2016 for voting against the majority dictated death penalty bill. There were no strangers staring back at her when she looked in her mirror. 

Yesterdays minority is today’s majority. This is the importance of minorities. Without them, majority dominance becomes perpetual. Another word for it is tyranny. This “tyranny of the majority” is what Tocqueville was warning against in his seminal work, Democracy in America. An excellent essay thereon by Arthur Milikh encapsulates what the eminent Frenchman feared: “… the majority reaches into citizens’ minds and hearts. It breaks citizens’ will to resist, to question its authority, and to think for themselves. The majority’s moral power makes individuals internally ashamed to contradict it, which in effect silences them, and this silencing culminates in a cessation of thinking. We see this happen almost daily: to stand against the majority is to ruin yourself”.

Minority rights must be protected, if only because it embodies that supreme prerogative that belongs to us as a matter of right – to change policies of government as established by majorities. Today’s minority is tomorrow’s majority. This is why the minority leadership battle in the House matters.

Will the real minority please stand up? The debates on minority representation has dominated proceedings all week. House business has, nonetheless, transpired. The conference committee report on the Bangsamoro Organic law was approved by the House Plenary. The hearings on the 2019 budget are in full swing. But still the tiptoeing, the probing and testing, the posturing continues. The factions have undergone their organizations and informed the Speaker of their line ups. 

The House leadership – as in the Speaker backed by the ruling majority – finally emancipated us from this slavery and made a formal recognition of who the minority and the minority leader is. According to Assistant Majority Leaders Cong. Miguel Romero and Cong. Ron Salo, the House leadership recognized Cong. Danilo Suarez this Monday. The committee on rules seconded on Tuesday.

We fully expect Cong. Rodolfo Farinas (who is not contesting the position) to take the matter to Court on Monday, as promised. The understanding is that he will be asking the Court to tap its expanded judicial power. Justices may have historically balked at intruding into the “impregnable” legislative sphere of discretion. Inter-branch courtesy, per the principle of separation of powers, demanded it. But, precisely, his argument will be that the Court should now step over the threshold because the House leadership gravely abused its discretion.

The lessons of history. Once again, a petitioner will confront the hurdle that no constitutional provision, no provision of law, no House rule supplies a definition of what “minority” and “minority leader” means. In that celebrated 1998 organization of the upper house, the battle for the Senate Presidency was between Senators Marcelo Fernan and Francisco Tatad. 22 selected Fernan while two voted Tatad. Senator Tatad, per Senate tradition, should have been minority leader. Yet the seven man LAKAS contingent, despite voting Fernan, organized themselves into the minority and elected Sen. Teofisto Guingona as their leader. Eerie familiar? Senate President Fernan proceeded to recognize the Guingona minority. Sen. Tatad brought a Quo Warranto action. The Supreme Court’s decision was to beg off, saying: we won’t tell you how to run your house.

This same deference they exhibited in Baguilat v. Alvarez. This case resulted from the very minority leadership battle that gave Cong. Suarez his seat in 2016. Though Cong. Teddy Baguilat’s group outnumbered the Suarez minority, the Court remained steadfast in keeping a hands off stance. 

This time, Cong. Farinas will be asking the Court to rule that Cong. Suarez’s support for Speaker Macapagal-Arroyo disqualifies him as minority leader. On the other hand, the latter insists that, with no determination by the majority (of the quorum) that all positions are vacant, then the minority leader’s position continues to be filled by him. There is no vacancy to contest, no reason for the Court to get involved in a purely internal matter. 

What is interesting is that, after the initial organization of their term, there are really no hard divisions between majority and minority factions. At any time, the rules even allow cross fertilization. You can join, unjoin and rejoin which side you fancy. A member may jump fences at will by the simple expedient of a written letter and its acceptance. This more flexible handling of internal majority and minority aggrupations is in contrast to the more official treatment of the Constitutional office of the Speaker.

Regardless of how the Court resolves the impasse, we are guaranteed a ring side seat to potentially more interesting plenary debates in the next 9 months of session.