Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Editorials: Much ado about the Senate
IT'S all a question of the Senate’s usefulness in legislative work.
In the perception of members of the House of Representatives, the Senate has outlived its usefulness in the sense that it has been spending much of its time in committee hearings and investigations on matters that are extraneous to its legislative functions or beyond the pale of its responsibility.
Perhaps, the problem is not only the question of usefulness but also of political direction and the need for a clearer and more defined view of the senators’ role as elder political statesmen of the republic.
Intellectual desert
There was a time in the Senate’s history when the country and people looked up to it with very high respect, seeking from senators their thoughts on serious national concerns.
But today, we can no longer find senators with deep national commitment, with the wit and the cutting ideas of a Don Claro Recto, the legal thoughts and populist ideals of a Jose P. Laurel, the steadfast principles and decisiveness of a Jose Diokno, and the incisive mind and unswerving nationalism of a Lorenzo Tañada.
There seems to be nothing now but intellectual desert blanketing the Senate’s hall.
Devastating argument
What we have instead are political wrangling and jockeying for position and exposure in the media, with senators mouthing snide remarks against one political target after another.
There’s no more intellectual prowess involved in backroom politics than there are in intrigues.
Some incumbent senators who have proven their worth as members of the august body may consider as a bit unkind the abolition of the Senate under a new system of government.
But the claim of non-performance of legislative tasks is the most devastating argument against it.
Con-Ass
Still, the constitutional provision on the formation of a Constituent Assembly to effect the desired constitutional changes will be the bone of contention in the coming days.
A provision in the 1987 Constitution says a Constitutional Assembly may be formed with the consent of three-fourths of the members of Congress.
But it did not say how the members should vote.
There are those who say the voting should be separate, like in the 1971 Constitution that provided that a Constituent Assembly may be formed with the consent of three-fourths of the members of Congress, with the House and Senate voting separately.
Or that the failure of either the Senate or the House to get support of three-fourths of their respective members means denial to form a Constitutional Assembly.
