POLITIKA-NOVELA: Reconciling Responsible Inquiry on Accountability and

Theatrics of the Legislature

A Commentary on Senatorial Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

By

Jyrus B. Cimatu

"All the world’s a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.”

- Sean O’Casey

Turning on the television in the Philippines today would most likely boil down to four
choices. Either one shuts off the television or continues to watch a talk show centered on showbiz, a
basketball game, or a telenovela, which in this case may involve two lovers making their way through
their troubled lives or the endless bickering, scandalizing, and provocative remarks and behaviours
of the Senate in their hearings.
To familiarize, under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, legislative inquiries in
aid of legislation, which follows their own rules of procedure, and that the right of persons
appearing in such proceeding shall be respect. In sum, these types of hearings are made with the
purpose of either reviewing the current state and applicability of the laws in the Philippines with the
view in mind of drafting, abolishing, or amending one.
Although the current government is already frightening since they are unrelenting in wielding
their powers, nothing could be more polarizing than witnessing the Senate conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation. It has brought numerous scandals that has politically divided the nation such as the
shaming of Senator Leila De Lima’s alleged sexual adventures, Philippine National Police Director
Roland “Bato” Dela Rosa weeping over the victims of his own police operation “Tokhang” and his
furious tirade over the six billion drug shipment, and more recently the unfathomable coercion of
Senator Grace Poe to school officials to concede their posts due to reasons not logically
understandable.
In the cases cited above, the blur between a telenovela and an inquiry in aid of legislation only
begins to widen since both are filled with action-packed bickering between Senators and resource
persons, entertainment of resource speakers sometimes at the prejudice of the other side of the
argument, dramatization and crucifixion of the (anta/prota)gonists, as may be directed by the
Senators themselves. But maybe, in some ways, that is the true goal of the legislators in conducting
the hearings.
Even though one must presume that the actions and aspirations of the legislature are
benevolent in order to enact laws for the betterment of the nation or to hold certain people and
officials accountable for the lapse in implementing the laws, one must also take note the practical,
pragmatic, and sometimes malevolent methods resorted to by the members of the Senate in order to
reach their politic(k)al strategies and elicit public favour on their side in order to remain in their
office.
In this regard, we must also criticize the actions of the members of the Senate in their
inquiries in aid of legislation since these hearings are televised and broadcasted which has socio-
moralistic implications in all people, especially the youth and children. When public officials
themselves promote degrading norms and values such as sexism, misogyny, and other such biases, it
becomes quite easy for this culture to prevail and for the constituents to follow. How shall the
Senate conduct inquiries in aid of legislation that is respectful and responsible and does not venture
into promoting detrimental values and norms will be the purpose of this paper.
Comparatively speaking, these types of inquiries are not new or foreign to the Philippines.
These are also conducted in several countries such as the Senate of the United States of America or
the Parliament of United Kingdom. For the purpose of this discussion, the paper will delve on the
Prime Minister Questions (PMQ’s) conducted by the Parliament in the United Kingdom which is
akin to the hearings done by Senate.
Every Wednesday, the Parliament of United Kingdom conducts a session for one hour
called Prime Minister Questions (PMQ’s) wherein the Prime Minister and his cabinet are grilled by
both his political party and rivals as to the implementation of policies, laws, and matters pertaining
to public service and governance. The PMQ’s are regarded as one of the most vital aspects of
common British life since it routinely updates and keeps the constituents involved in politics.1
The PMQ’s, to summarize naturally and almost always feature the dry humour, wit, and
banter when the Prime Minister and those who question him are arguing before the Parliament. It
offers to the public an informative yet entertaining type of debate that promotes political
involvement and values that are essential to British culture. It hones citizens how to better form
ideas and arguments without necessarily resorting to fallacies, personal attacks, and degradation of
the other/s in order to succeed in promoting a policy or law.
For example, when Boris Johnson, a member of Parliament, supported policies of Donald
Trump who signed an executive order banning flights to and from US from certain countries, he
was entertainingly denounced by the Parliament, including his own members without resorting to
foul personal attacks and while at the same time promoting the values the British cherish in their
system.2
This puts to shame the remarks of the several public officials we deem honourable to hold
office such as Tito Sotto interrogating the resource person regarding his affair and particular sex life

1 Question Time". House of Commons Library. Parliament.uk. Retrieved 25 July 2010.

2 Winford, Steven. Donald Trump's travel ban: Boris Johnson lobbies president - as it happened on Sunday
January 29 . London: BBC, 2017.
with Senator De Lima, wherein it shames the honour and integrity of the person which is enshrined
in the Constitution.
Public perception may even prove to be positive for the government even if the inquiries are
now presumed to be theatrics inside the Congress, wherein if one could raise the standard of
etiquette on how to perfectly argue, the constituents is interested and will be politically involved in
the situation, as shown in a study of the Parliament during PMQ’s.3
Taking this into account, how shall the Senators conduct themselves in a hearing so as to be
models for their constituents and at the same time be entertaining and informative? It all boils down
to the main difference between the UK and Philippines: education. Honing students from a very
young age and teaching them how to understand concepts and ideas and at the same time forming a
logical argument raises the bar of how one should promote his proposal.
Instead of blatantly attacking persons left and right, spreading fake news, and polarizing the
country apart, if one is taught how to brilliantly argue and understand a problem and at the same
time taught moral values and right conduct, then maybe, the Senators, which some of them sadly has
no formal or little value on education, can raise the standard of etiquette which is seen by many in
the Philippines and follow their example on how to dissect others regarding their accountability to
the country.
The socio-moralistic implications of a public hearing must be taken into vital consideration
by the Congress since it involves the viewership of all the Philippines. It serves as an alternative
insight and education into the realm of politics. If the lawmakers themselves does not observe the
right etiquette in all their official affairs which typically involves the public, the very purpose of
which it was created, which is to police and promote public order will instead be to manage the very
disorder it negligently made, a tragic ending to an otherwise usually comedic telenovela.4

3 Hansard Society, Still Turned Off? – Public Attitudes to People’s PMQ’s, London, 2017
4 Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer