After taking an oath to tell the truth, former president Duterte proceeded to litter the Senate with curses, stories, and off-color jokes. This didn’t surprise anyone. What befuddled watchers was the inability of senators to retain control of their own hearing.

Former senator Panfilo Lacson couldn’t hide his disappointment. On X, he lamented that the Senate was “invaded.” Not by an army but by disrespect, mockery and even buffoonery. His summation left little doubt on the day’s casualty and only saving grace: “Only one consistently and steadfastly stood up to preserve the dignity of the Philippine Senate.”

They say former presidents deserve courtesy. Yet no custom affords presidents the privilege to behave badly in the proceedings of a co-equal branch. No tradition allows them to give jokes instead of answers when under oath. 

One of the perks of being a senator is the gravitas the institution lends. But gravitas requires willingness, if not courage, to protect it. Which brings us back to Lacson’s point. Whether king or commoner, when your guest is a buffoon, you don’t suffer in silence or worse, wallow in the same nonsense. You sort him out and remind him whose house he is in. 

This public demonstration of weakness comes at a bad time for the Senate. There’s a brewing narrative online arguing that the present Senate is not the equivalent of the senates of the past. There’s a slew of texts, memes, and videos highlighting the Republic’s former senators. It’s a not-so-subtle comparison to the present stock. Although a legislature is not measured by the diplomas of its members, those members bear the collectively burden of lifting the chamber in the eyes of the public. And there lies the rub. (READ: The Philippine Senate: From statesmen to showmen)

Perspective of two worlds

The justification for a Senate originates from an idea that laws are made better if they are infused with the perspectives of two worlds. The first one is the view of the people closest to the ground. These are the congressmen whose familiarity with their districts and constituents allows legislation to remain practical, not academic. This is balanced by a second element, which uses the national perspective. That is, laws that might be driven by parochial concerns must be weighed against broader concerns. After all, these laws are not limited to one district alone. They apply to all 100 million Filipinos. 

This interplay of two separate houses is just an ideal. None of it is written on some sacred tablet. There are equally efficient unicameral legislatures all over the world. A chamber divided into two is by no means more democratic than those that are not. The reality is, the framers of the 1987 Constitution toyed with a unicameral system but subsequently changed their minds. 

None of this is meant to favor one system over the other. Rather, it is meant to highlight the need for the present Senate to course correct and heed Lacson’s subtle warning. When the chamber meant to infuse national perspective is now overrun by persons consumed by parochial interests, or worse servility to a patron, then the need to maintain a separate chamber becomes open to question. 

It is not hard to guess who stands to benefit from the Senate’s decline. Both history and public have yet to bless a member of the lower house with the presidency. But in a parliament, prime ministers are elected by their peers (congressmen), not the public in general. Though charter change (Cha-cha) has been paused, it still looms, just waiting for the right conditions. 

Those conditions can be built on staple arguments used by those who push for a shift to a parliamentary system. Lately, we have seen some resurfacing in our social feeds. One string complains about the cost of maintaining 24 senators and their staff. If the Senate is no longer the chamber capable of pushing back against even just a former president, then the public would view it as no different from the House. Ergo, a redundant expenditure. In an era of tightening budgets, calls to right-size the entire legislature can gain more ground. 

Another narrative focuses on the upper chamber’s diminishing ability to produce presidential contenders. Several former presidents were once senators. In the Senate, one can prove both independence and ability to run an entire nation.

But independence does not tolerate obsequiousness. Which is where the Quadcom hearings are presented as a stark contrast. A lot of online content identify some congressmen as more than equal to their national counterparts. Others argue that, lately, mayors have become more viable as future presidents. If that is the case, then the need to maintain this “training ground” becomes more vulnerable to question.

Perhaps some feel secure so long as the cases of Santiago v. Comelec and Lambino v. Comelec (which rejected previous Cha-chas) are not overturned. It’s important to note that while these two cases ruled based on legal arguments, like other landmark constitutional cases, they operated within a specific context. And the context of those two cases included two things: (1) a civil society committed to defend the Senate; and (2) an independent and institutionally robust Senate. 

It seems uncertain whether today’s civil society is eager to defend the upper chamber with the same fervor. Going by the tone of essays that recently went viral in feeds as well as in group chats, the mood is disappointment, if not disenchantment with an institution overrun by dynasties and celebrities. As for the second ingredient, well, a Senate that shows helplessness, if not submission, to a mere former president, allowing him to hijack its proceedings, signals that we operate in a milieu quite different from Santiago and Lambino.

No Cha-cha initiative has yet been able to convince the public that the Senate is no longer needed. However, judging from the reaction to this week’s spectacle, it seems the Senate is quite capable of doing the job. Parliamentary shift advocates will capitalize on unforced errors. And unlike before the public and civil society might sit this one out.

This leaves the Senate on its own in a battle for relevance against foes with enormous resources. Which is only fair. The Constitution created co-equal branches. But it is up to the occupants to defend their institution’s (as well as their own) dignity. – Rappler.com

John Molo teaches Constitutional Law in the University of the Philippines’ College of Law. He has argued several landmark cases before the Philippine Supreme Court. He is a past president of the Harvard Law School Alumni Association of the Philippines and is a Trustee of the Phil. Bar Association. He Chairs the Editorial Board of the IBP Law Journal.