ANNOTATION

REINVENTING TRADITION:
THE EVOLVING ROLE OF THE SENATE

By

ATTY. DAVID ROBERT C. AQUINO, CSEE *

A former Director IV and Chief for Legal and Legislative Affairs, O/SJEE,
Senate of the Philippines, Atty. Aquino is a law professor and has also
authored several law books some of which are “The Tax Navigator;” “Consti:
An Outline of the...

________________

§ 1.Judge, p. 983

§ 2.Teacher, p. 986

§ 3.Critic, p. 987

§ 4.Investigator, p. 988

§ 5.Fiscalizer, p. 991

§ 6.Respice ad finem, p. 993

________________

“Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines” or so the

1987 Constitution provides.

This is not new.

In fact previous Philippine constitutions have vested such power to the

Congress.

The 1935 Constitution provided that “the Legislative Power shall be vested in
a Congress of the Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives" while the 1973 Constitution modified this by stating that
1

“the Legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa." 2

With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, legislative power is now vested
in a bicameral legislative body.

Regardless of the institution in place “i be it a unicameral or a bicameral

legislature, it can be said that legislative power, or the power to enact laws,
has always been traditionally reposed to a representative body known as
Congress or whatever derivative it may spawn.
It would be awkward, nay, absurd if we suddenly amended the fundamental
law and delegated legislative power to the Supreme Court and judicial power
to Congress. But what an interesting situation that would be.

Yet amidst the turmoil besetting the country in modern Philippine history,
Congress and more particularly the Philippine Senate has reluctantly
assumed non-traditional roles.

Reluctance, because according to some sectors of society, its assumption of

other non-traditional roles has often delayed the legislative process. But it
must be underscored that these so-called non-traditional roles comprise the
entire gamut of the legislative process—meaning the function of Congress,
particularly the Upper Chamber or the Senate, is not limited to mere drafting
and enacting of statutes.

As far as the Upper Chamber is concerned, history has borne witness to the
Senate donning other hats other than that of legislator. In fact, throughout
its illustrious and colorful history, it can be said that the Senate has
redefined its traditional role within the dynamics of Philippine sociopolitical
history necessitated by the dictates of events that continually shape it.

Thus, it comes as no surprise today if we see the Senate, among other roles,
as judge, teacher, critic, investigator and fiscalizer.

Judge

As judge, we saw the Philippine Senate convening for the first time in history
as an impeachment court in 2000. Although it had an anti-climactic end, the
impeachment court provided Congress and the people with a first hand look
at yet another American import that has burrowed itself deep into the
nation’s constitution.

This American-inspired mechanism of public accountability found its way in

Article XI of the Constitution as follows:
“Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

“Section 2. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed
from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.

“Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
initiate all cases of impeachment.

"(2) A verified complaint may be filed by any Member of the House of

Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days,
and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The
Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its
report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the
House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

"(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary
either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be
recorded.

"(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least

one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

"(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.

"(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When
the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

"(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from
office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines,
but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial,
and punishment according to law.

"(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out
the purpose of this section.”

Yet at the onset, even before the start of the actual impeachment proceedings
at the Senate, there was an overwhelming consensus that the Senate, acting
as an impeachment court, should not be equated with the regular organs of
the Judiciary.

Unlike the judiciary, the Senate is not a court in its proper sense. This is
because its procedure and the very nature of its composition is entirely
partisan. Its appreciation of evidence is not dictated directly by the rules of
evidence as promulgated by the Supreme Court but rather by its own internal
rules.

Moreover, the composition of the impeachment court is drawn along partisan

lines although every senator is expected to act with impartiality and
objectivity 5. in the end, however, it is still a numbers game.

And to fully emphasize the very nature of such proceeding, this became fully
apparent with the recent adoption of the report of the Committee of Justice
by the House of Representatives which tolled the death knell on any attempt
3

by the political opposition to transmit the impeachment complaint from the

lower house to the Senate.
Yet this is not to discount the impact of the Senate acting as judge, so to
speak, on Philippine society.

During the impeachment trial of then President Estrada, all at once as if on

cue, people 5. from the intellectual to the man on the street 5. were sprouting
legal terms such as “culpable violation of the constitution,” “burden of
proof” and “due process” as well as adding their own five cent worth of opinion
and observations regarding the impeachment process.

And as the nation watched with mixed awe and amusement at the unfolding
of events, the senators themselves took it upon themselves to educate the
people on such legal terms.

It was a joy and a marvel to observe Senators the likes of Miriam Defensor
Santiago, Aquilino Pimentel and the late Raul Roco elucidating on the finer
points of law on several occasions. And it was more of a delight when the
Chief Justice himself gave several observations and explanations on issues of
evidence and procedure. These gave the ordinary man a peek at the
intellectual prowess of some of the senators which comprised the
impeachment court.

Teacher

The deliberations conducted within the plenary hall of the Senate are a
wealth of information to students of our nation’s political history.

Since the Senate is composed of notable personalities from the academe, law,
business and government service it comes then as no surprise that
deliberations are accentuated with insightful and intellectual exchanges.
Interpellations become the avenue for the elucidation of novel and
complicated legal issues. In fact, the Records and Journals of the Senate have
now become veritable tomes of invaluable principles, views and opinions that
have shaped national policy and charted the course of this country.

Besides providing invaluable insights with legislative flavor, the Senate’s

Records and Journals have also proven to be invaluable tools in aiding the
Supreme Court in its task of either constructing or interpreting the law. It is
one way by which the Senate imparts the learning experience taught within
its august halls for the benefit of everyone.

A valuable offshoot and important aspect of this particular role is that the
Senate has now become the training ground for future leaders of the nation.

As the late Senator Blas Ople aptly put:

4

“The Philippine Senate has been widely regarded as the breeding ground for
national statesmen. In its rich history, it has been peopled by eminent men and
women 5. notably its first President, Manuel L. Quezon, Claro M. Recto and Jose P.
Laurel 5. whose voices rang with brilliant rhetoric and wisdom in great debates that
often resulted in the distillation of the best consensus in lawmaking.”

Critic
As critic, the Senate lends its voice to bring to the bar of public opinion
matters of national significance. This is not to mention the numerous
privilege speeches given on various occasions on the session floor bringing to
the public’s attention various anomalous transactions in government as well
as issues of national import.

Although this practice has seen its share of negative comments from various
sectors, it should be remembered that privilege speeches act as vehicles to
vent the grievance of an otherwise voiceless sector of society.

Yet this practice has been strongly supported by Senator Tatad when he 5

underscored the role of legislators in voicing out the sentiments of the people
against government abuse, to wit:
“This is not the first time that the Senate put itself in the line of fire of those whose
narrow personal interests run counter to the national will. The history of the Senate
is replete with examples of courageous men and women who resisted strong pressure
to remain faithful to their sworn duty even at the expense of their own political
fortunes. We pause at this time to look back to this proud tradition and pay tribute
to those men and women. For those of us who inherited the burden, we can do no less
than renew our devotion to those principles to which they dedicated their best for the
past eighty years.”

Moreover, it should be noted that the Senate in the course of its legislative
role in society has the attendant authority to issue resolutions that express
the sentiment of the entire body regarding a particular issue.

It is through these resolutions that the Senate, as a body manifests its view
on particular subjects.

Ranging from expressions of sympathy and condolences to congratulations

and accolades, Senate resolutions have also become the vehicle of strongly-
worded opinions and appeals regarding various issues of national importance.

A quick examination of the records reveal that as of date since the

10th Congress the Senate has churned out a total 3,222 resolutions broken
down as follows: 1,168 resolutions in the 10thCongress; 953 resolutions in the
11th Congress; 768 resolutions in the 12thCongress; and 333 resolutions in the
current Congress.

Investigator

An offshoot of its role as critic is that of investigator.

Thus, it has now become a practice that in every congressional session, huge
number of resolutions are filed calling for an investigation into the
multifarious activities of government and in some instances of private
enterprise.

With the end in view of crafting remedial legislation, the Senate of today has
embarked on numerous investigations not only in anomalous government
transactions but also on issues that touch the very fiber of the Filipino way of
life.

Some of these legislative inquiries in aid of legislation have taken the country
by storm. Like a popular telenovela—publicly-aired Senate hearings have
people riveted to their television sets. Just take a gander at two of the more
controversial subjects and personalities that were featured in such Senate
hearings:
First, the Jueteng Issue, which dealt with the problem of illegal numbers game in
the country and featured various alleged jueteng operators, beneficiaries,
collaborators and even a religious personality. One will never forget the
confrontation and heated exchange between counsel Frank Chavez and Senator
Richard Gordon which resulted in the former being cited for contempt by the Senate;
and

Second, the Venable Contract issue, which inquired into the legality of the contract
itself as well as to the authority of the National Security Adviser to sign for and in
behalf of the country which resulted in the detention of the National Security
Adviser stemming from a contempt order by the Blue Ribbon Committee. It would
also be noted that this incident sparked the issuance of the infamous Executive
Order No. 464 which required Presidential approval before any member or officer of
the Executive Branch can appear before Congress leading to a stand-off between
these two equal yet coordinate branches of government.

These are but just two of the more than dozens of issues that the Senate is
investigating through its various committees but they showcase the depth,
the drama, the intensity and the zeal by which parties to a legislative hearing
conduct themselves.

As to the validity of its power to inquire, in aid of legislation, it is worth

mentioning that no less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution has vested in
the Senate the power to undertake such legislative inquiries.

It provides that: 6

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The right of persons appearing in our affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.

The power of legislative investigation may be implied from the express power
of legislation and does not in it have to be expressly granted.

To avoid abuse of the investigative power of Congress, it is now provided that

the power to conduct investigations is intended to be in aid of legislation. As a
legislative creature, Congress does not have the power to conduct
investigations merely for the sake of conducting investigations 5. that is
solely within the purview of the Executive Branch of government. Hence,
legislative inquiries should not be looked upon as an end itself but only as a
means to an end.
Aptly deemed as a legislative mechanism to aid Congress in its legislative
function it is therefore looked upon as a privilege that is coextensive with its
power of legislation.

It is also illuminating that a High Court from another jurisdiction elucidated

7

on the subject matter that are within the ambit of Senate inquiry. It declared
that it encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws
as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. Moreover, It includes surveys
of defects in one social, economic or political system for the purpose of
enabling the Senate, or Congress for that matter, to remedy them.

As for the purpose of such congressional inquiries, there are generally four
widely-accepted purposes of inquiries as follows:
•”First, the collation of relevant information pertinent to its task of enacting new
legislative measures;

Second, for purposes of legislative oversight;

Third, for purposes of enlightening the public regarding issues of

national importance with the end in view of forming public opinion.
In the words of Woodrow Wilson—It is the proper duty of a
representative body to look diligently into every affair of government
and to talk much about what it sees... unless Congress has and uses
every means of acquainting itself with the acts and disposition of the
administrative agents of the government, the country must remain in
embarrassing and crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is
most important that it should understand and direct. The informing
function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative
functions; and

Fourth, for purposes of internal management such as the resolution

of issues concerning its membership, electoral fraud, fitness of
members and questions regarding parliamentary procedure.

Moreover, as an incidence of such congressional inquiries, reports or

conclusions generated by such inquiries may also form the basis for the
recommendation of prosecution through the proper executive institutions.

It should be noted, however, that this broad and allencompassing power of

legislative inquiry is not without limitations.

The 1987 Constitution itself provides for the limitations when it specifically
states that the exercise of such power must be in aid of legislation.

Thus, it is a condition sine qua non that the subject matter of the legislative
inquiry must be germane to a specific legislative measure pending with a
committee of Congress be it with the Senate or with the House of
Representatives. Congress cannot simply initiate an investigation for the
sake of conducting one or because the public demands of it. Contingent upon
the initiation of a valid congressional inquiry is the issue of relevance of such
inquiry to a pending legislative proposal.
Moreover, the Constitution also provides that such legislative inquiries must
be in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure so as to preclude
arbitrariness on the part of Congress in the conduct of its legislative inquiry.

Such procedural due process is guaranteed under the fundamental law of the
land and is instituted so as to avoid any violations by members of Congress of
the constitutional rights of persons appearing in such investigations pursuant
to the constitutional exhortation that rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Fiscalizer

The adage that Congress has the power of the purse has never rung so true
when budget season sets in. One of the constitutionally mandated function of
Congress is the approval of the annual appropriations of government.

Sections 24 and 25 of the Constitution provides for the manner where

Congress performs this very important function:
“Section 24. All appropriations, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of
the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.

“Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by
the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The
form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.

"(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill

unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which
it relates.

"(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow
the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments or agencies.

"(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended,
and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed therein.

"(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions may,
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

"(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only
for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.

"(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the
general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations
law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force
and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.”
It is during this time that the Senate rolls up its sleeves and places the
proposed national budget under scrutiny ensuring that every centavo is
judiciously allocated to the appropriate program or office. This is where the
Senate fiscalizes the government’s power of the sword through the power of
the purse.

In the words of then Senate President Ernesto Maceda: 8

“The Senate of the Philippines must be attuned to the times. It cannot just draft
legislations. As holder of the purse, it must also make sure that public funds are
spent expeditiously and must prevent any wastage in its use. It must also fight
against graft and corruption."
9

Respice ad finem

When we speak of the Senate of today, it is no longer the Senate that simply
crafts and makes laws. Former Senator Francisco Tatad even viewed the
Senate as the conscience of Philippine society reverberating within its august
halls the pulse of the people.

As the undisputed symbol and bastion of democratic ideals in the country, the
Senate serves as the ultimate forum for consensus and consultation ever
accessible to the common man.

Its halls are veritable training grounds for statesmen and future leaders of
the country. More often than not, Philippine Presidents have had their rite of
passage through the august halls of the Senate. Its proceedings and
deliberations and ultimately the laws it crafts and enacts are reflections of
the immediate need of Philippine society ever sensitive to its nuances and
demands.

Thus, with its redefined traditional role in Philippine political history, the
Senate of today is arguably distinctly different from its predecessors.

It is something more.