"We need to elect the right people to office—that would be the more challenging task."
"We need to elect the right people to office—that would be the more challenging task."
Constitutional reform was a buzzword in the early years of the Duterte administration. With two years more to go, it is unlikely that such a move to change the country’s fundamental law will come to fruition. My only regret is that this was a huge missed opportunity for our nation. With a strong president who, midway into his six year term, still enjoys an overwhelming support from the people, this would have been the perfect timing to review, and amend the Constitution. Not only so as to cure whatever defects that there may be in the 1987 Constitution, but in order for us to adapt more responsively with the shifting political and social demands. After all, tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Times change—we, too, change with them.
Federalism was central to the Duterte platform. Indeed, who best to champion the cause than a president elected from the geographic fringes of the Philippines. He had a proof of concept—the once-bucolic-but-now-bustling city of Davao, which he ran as mayor for several terms. The ideal was to do away with the centralization with which imperial Manila gripped the country’s growth, leaving much to be desired in the economic progress in the rest of the regions. But despite a perceived consensus at the onset, a workable timeline to introduce constitutional reforms remained wanting. But as it is, it seems that federalism has become a lost cause.
Majority of the proponents of constitutional reform prefer a shift to a federal, parliamentary and unicameral form of government. By federal, it means having two centers of power, or in technical parlance, sovereignties—the central or federal government, and the sub-federal government. Through a parliamentary system, the proponents wanted to replace the American-style presidential republican system with that of either a Westminster parliamentary form or a hybrid French semi-parliamentary system. That means fusing the executive and legislative powers of government in the majority party or coalition. Lastly, a unicameral legislature, which is not actually new to the country’s political system. In fact, we had a unicameral legislature for at least four times in our history—the Malolos Congress, the National Assembly following 1935 Constitution, during the Second Republic established during the Japanese occupation and the Batasan Pambansa created by the 1973 Constitution.
Becoming unicameral means only one thing—abolishing the Senate.
Many would be quick to agree, why not? Having two co-equal legislative chambers seems a redundancy since it lengthens an otherwise already extended legislative process. Likewise, many times in the past, differences not only in political composition but even in opinion and perspective have resulted in a deadlock between the two houses. Finally, considering how much money is spent on 24 senators, it can indeed sound logical that revenues can be saved by having only one chamber. The money could be better spent on needed social services.
When it was first introduced into the Philippine political system, with the passage of the Jones Act in 1916, the Senate then was far different than its present version. Senators were originally elected on the basis of senatorial districts, basically patterned after the administrative regions that we currently have. That explains why Leyte and Samar had senators prior to the Commonwealth era, but have largely been unrepresented by a homegrown native for several decades already.
Reforms to the Senate were introduced with the first amendments to the 1935 Constitution that restored the bicameral Congress. But these reforms abolished the senatorial districts and senators began to be elected at large, nationally. It said these reforms were initiated with the intention of making the upper house a seedbed—so to speak—for political leaders of national prominence who could be potential candidates for the presidency.
This begs the question, should we then abolish the Senate? In my opinion, that would be a mistake.
Still, the Senate badly needs radical reform in composition and function.
When the Senate was first created, the intent was for it to be a house of territorial representation, as opposed to the House of Representatives which was designed to be a chamber of proportional representation. That is why senatorial districts were created—so that regardless of population, there was equal representation among the different groups of provinces in the upper house. As a result, every province that composed the senatorial district had a voice in the crafting of national laws, and appropriating the national budget, a representation that is now denied to regions and provinces that have been for so long unrepresented in the Senate.
Region-based representation in the Senate will ensure that all regions will now be equally be represented and that the interests of regions with larger populations do not dominate the attention of the government. In the current system, senators are likely to draw more support from vote-rich metropolitan areas or provinces, thus, much of the work they do are directed to these same areas. However, with region-wide constituencies, the Senate would now more closely integrate the domestic priorities of each region, thus allowing the legislative process to be more responsive to local needs.
This is particularly important in a federal system, where the House of Representatives has a membership that is proportional to the population of each constituent region, and on the other hand, the Senate is intended to represent the regions thus protecting their exclusive jurisdiction. This way, having a Senate elected on a regional basis would be the best institutional fit to support the political devolution instituted by the 1987 Constitution, and when the right time comes, for a federal system of government.
Not only a change of composition is needed. It is likewise necessary to radically alter the function of the Senate. It is often mistaken that is always necessary to have a co-equal bicameral system. In several republics around the world, however, upper and lower houses of a bicameral legislature can have an asymmetric relationship, usually with the lower house becoming the more dominant chamber, and having more powers than the upper house.
In an asymmetric bicameral system, the Senate serves as the chamber of legislative review. The House of Representatives will now have the exclusive right to introduce legislation. On the other hand, the Senate can deliberate further on and propose amendments to bills passed by the lower house. While it cannot reject these bills, it effectively delay its adoption and passage until a compromise is achieved within a reasonable period of time, effectively shorten the legislative process.
By freeing up its participation in the lawmaking process, the Senate can assign more time reviewing the actions of the government, conducting inquiries into important national issues and concerns as well as ratifying international treaties and agreements. With these reforms to the Senate in place, it would be appropriate to abolish the Commission on Appointments and transfer to the Senate the full right to confirm appointments made by the President.
How would this new Senate look like? Definitely, it would be larger than the 24-senator system that we presently have. There could be at least three senators per region, and with 16 administrative and one autonomous region and another two senators elected to represent overseas Filipinos, this reformed Senate would be composed of at least 50 senators.
Why not abolish the Senate? First because admittedly, persevering the bicameral system will avoid the concentration of legislative power and prevent the possibility of its abuse—a trusted check-and-balance mechanism against a possible tyranny of numbers in the lower house. Second, because a region-based Senate could be the best platform for regionally-driven but nationally-focused economic integration and political cohesion, allowing the once unheard regions to have a louder voice in crafting national policies.
A change in the system can only solve half the problem. It can only do as much. More importantly, we need to elect the right people to office. Perhaps that would be an even more challenging task.
“Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change.”—Pope Francis
