What went wrong with its reform agenda?
By Efren L. Danao, Manila Times Senior Reporter
A determined Senate should have found it easy to legislate reforms after the minority and majority had identified the reform agenda and had agreed to give them priority. Instead, the Senate wavered and strayed from its chosen path. What went wrong?
There are three main reasons for the low output of the Senate: too many investigations in aid of legislation with little results, the work ethic of some of the senators and laxity in implementing Senate rules.
Checks and balances
Investigations in aid of legislation and the exercise of oversight functions are needed by the legislature to expose anomalies and government openness and accountability. Without these functions, the republican principle of checks and balances will fail, and the executive department could do everything it wants with impunity.
Although investigations and oversight functions are essential to democracy, they should not cause the legislature to deviate from its primary function of lawmaking. This seems to be what happened at the Senate.
Since the first regular session, the Senate has approved only three committee reports on investigations conducted. These are the alleged irregularities in the bidding for poll automation machines by the Commission on Elections, the alleged mismanagement of the fertilizer fund and the legality of the Venable contract.
The Senate agreed with the Supreme Court finding on poll automation irregularities and urged the resignation of all Comelec officials involved. It also agreed with the investigation findings that anomalies occurred in the distribution of the fertilizer fund before the 2004 presidential election, and called for the prosecution of former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante.
The Senate said the lobbying agreement signed by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales with the Venable law firm was unconstitutional.
One of the more sensational Senate investigations was into the proliferation of jueteng. It held numerous public hearings, during which many personalities were linked to the illegal numbers game. To date the Committees on Public Order and Illegal Drugs and on Games and Amusement have not yet written even a preliminary report of their findings.
Another high-profile investigation involves the loan agreement for the NorthRail project, which was questioned by the UP Law Center. Like the inquiry into jueteng, the Senate committee of the whole still has no official findings.
When landslides and severe flooding devastated several towns in Aurora, Quezon, and Nueva Ecija in 2005, the Senate committee of the whole investigated the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and its actions against illegal logging. Again, it produced no results even after a number of hearings.
The very first hearing of the Committee on Labor investigated “sex escorts.” Many movie sex sirens were invited to numerous well-attended hearings. That was more than two years ago, and nothing has been heard about the committee’s findings.
Among the other investigations that yielded no possible aid to legislation—or even an authoritative compendium of facts about these subjects—are those on: the rehiring of Napocor executives after granting them retirement benefits, Subic smuggling, the drug market in Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City; the Philcomsat operations; the raids on the media and the arrest of citizens without warrants under PD 1017; the murder of a top Hacienda Luisita labor leader; the Internet sex trade; the Taba-yoyong raid where protest paraphernalia of former Sen. Loren Legarda were allegedly confiscated; the failed and bloody jailbreak of Abu Sayyaf detainees in Bagong Diwa, Bicutan; the Guimaras oil spill; the repatriation of OFWs from Lebanon; the smuggling of rice and vegetables; and the liability of former President Fidel V. Ramos for the “illegal” investment of government funds in the Smokey Mountain Rehabilitation Project.
The work ethic of some senators regarding their attendance in committee hearings and sessions also restricts the Senate’s accomplishment of its reform agenda. The time taken up by the senators in conducting investigations would not have impacted on the production record of the Senate if only they had shown an equal zeal in attending committee meetings to discuss items on their reform agenda. A bill can reach the floor only if it has been approved by a committee.
Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the topnotcher in committee attendance, had urged his colleagues early in the first regular session to attend more committee hearings “to enable them to distill issues which could be translated into legislation.”
Sen. Sergio Osmena 3rd agreed on the importance of committees, which are supposed to be the legislature’s workhorses.
“The time I spend in sessions is the least productive of my work in the Senate. The most substantive work is done in hearings and inquiries,” he said.
The words of Enrile and Osmeña fell mostly on deaf ears. Many senators were no-shows even in committee hearings of their own bills. Plagued with frequent absenteeism, the committees had a hard time finishing hearings on measures under discussion.
Of the 2,468 bills filed in the Senate, 2,211 are still pending in committees, giving a stark picture of what absenteeism has wreaked on the Senate’s reform agenda.
The Senate’s session is supposed to start at 3 p.m. Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangi-linan and Enrile keep pleading to their colleagues to be at the session hall on time so the Senate could tackle more bills. Their pleas are ignored. The sessions rarely start on time. Definitely they have never started on time even once during the third regular session.
The rules on procedure are supposed to smoothen floor deliberations—provided they are strictly adhered to. Not in the Senate. Sen. Joker Arroyo once stood up to call attention to another senator who was out of order. But Majority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. asked him not to raise that issue, because it would only further prolong the debate, and Arroyo did not pursue it. Since then no points of order have been raised against any senator violating the rules of order.
Senators who sponsor bills are allowed to interpellate and even propose amendments. Debates are supposed to have ended once a bill enters the period of amendments, but this rule is often ignored. Thus, there is a frequent mix-up between the period of interpellation and the period of amendments. There have been instances also when measures that had already been debated upon and approved are discussed once again
A determined Senate should have found it easy to legislate reforms after the minority and majority had identified the reform agenda and had agreed to give them priority. Instead, the Senate wavered and strayed from its chosen path. What went wrong?
There are three main reasons for the low output of the Senate: too many investigations in aid of legislation with little results, the work ethic of some of the senators and laxity in implementing Senate rules.
Checks and balances
Investigations in aid of legislation and the exercise of oversight functions are needed by the legislature to expose anomalies and government openness and accountability. Without these functions, the republican principle of checks and balances will fail, and the executive department could do everything it wants with impunity.
Although investigations and oversight functions are essential to democracy, they should not cause the legislature to deviate from its primary function of lawmaking. This seems to be what happened at the Senate.
Since the first regular session, the Senate has approved only three committee reports on investigations conducted. These are the alleged irregularities in the bidding for poll automation machines by the Commission on Elections, the alleged mismanagement of the fertilizer fund and the legality of the Venable contract.
The Senate agreed with the Supreme Court finding on poll automation irregularities and urged the resignation of all Comelec officials involved. It also agreed with the investigation findings that anomalies occurred in the distribution of the fertilizer fund before the 2004 presidential election, and called for the prosecution of former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante.
The Senate said the lobbying agreement signed by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales with the Venable law firm was unconstitutional.
One of the more sensational Senate investigations was into the proliferation of jueteng. It held numerous public hearings, during which many personalities were linked to the illegal numbers game. To date the Committees on Public Order and Illegal Drugs and on Games and Amusement have not yet written even a preliminary report of their findings.
Another high-profile investigation involves the loan agreement for the NorthRail project, which was questioned by the UP Law Center. Like the inquiry into jueteng, the Senate committee of the whole still has no official findings.
When landslides and severe flooding devastated several towns in Aurora, Quezon, and Nueva Ecija in 2005, the Senate committee of the whole investigated the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and its actions against illegal logging. Again, it produced no results even after a number of hearings.
The very first hearing of the Committee on Labor investigated “sex escorts.” Many movie sex sirens were invited to numerous well-attended hearings. That was more than two years ago, and nothing has been heard about the committee’s findings.
Among the other investigations that yielded no possible aid to legislation—or even an authoritative compendium of facts about these subjects—are those on: the rehiring of Napocor executives after granting them retirement benefits, Subic smuggling, the drug market in Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City; the Philcomsat operations; the raids on the media and the arrest of citizens without warrants under PD 1017; the murder of a top Hacienda Luisita labor leader; the Internet sex trade; the Taba-yoyong raid where protest paraphernalia of former Sen. Loren Legarda were allegedly confiscated; the failed and bloody jailbreak of Abu Sayyaf detainees in Bagong Diwa, Bicutan; the Guimaras oil spill; the repatriation of OFWs from Lebanon; the smuggling of rice and vegetables; and the liability of former President Fidel V. Ramos for the “illegal” investment of government funds in the Smokey Mountain Rehabilitation Project.
The work ethic of some senators regarding their attendance in committee hearings and sessions also restricts the Senate’s accomplishment of its reform agenda. The time taken up by the senators in conducting investigations would not have impacted on the production record of the Senate if only they had shown an equal zeal in attending committee meetings to discuss items on their reform agenda. A bill can reach the floor only if it has been approved by a committee.
Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the topnotcher in committee attendance, had urged his colleagues early in the first regular session to attend more committee hearings “to enable them to distill issues which could be translated into legislation.”
Sen. Sergio Osmena 3rd agreed on the importance of committees, which are supposed to be the legislature’s workhorses.
“The time I spend in sessions is the least productive of my work in the Senate. The most substantive work is done in hearings and inquiries,” he said.
The words of Enrile and Osmeña fell mostly on deaf ears. Many senators were no-shows even in committee hearings of their own bills. Plagued with frequent absenteeism, the committees had a hard time finishing hearings on measures under discussion.
Of the 2,468 bills filed in the Senate, 2,211 are still pending in committees, giving a stark picture of what absenteeism has wreaked on the Senate’s reform agenda.
The Senate’s session is supposed to start at 3 p.m. Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangi-linan and Enrile keep pleading to their colleagues to be at the session hall on time so the Senate could tackle more bills. Their pleas are ignored. The sessions rarely start on time. Definitely they have never started on time even once during the third regular session.
The rules on procedure are supposed to smoothen floor deliberations—provided they are strictly adhered to. Not in the Senate. Sen. Joker Arroyo once stood up to call attention to another senator who was out of order. But Majority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. asked him not to raise that issue, because it would only further prolong the debate, and Arroyo did not pursue it. Since then no points of order have been raised against any senator violating the rules of order.
Senators who sponsor bills are allowed to interpellate and even propose amendments. Debates are supposed to have ended once a bill enters the period of amendments, but this rule is often ignored. Thus, there is a frequent mix-up between the period of interpellation and the period of amendments. There have been instances also when measures that had already been debated upon and approved are discussed once again
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home