top of page
Action for Economic Reforms

A DAY IN CONGRESS

The author is coordinator and member of the Management Collective of Action for Economic Reforms.


A visit to the Congress of the Philippines – whatever the purpose – is both educational and amusing.


At the session hall, one observes that the activities are dull. Rep.

Satur Ocampo is delivering a privileged speech, lambasting the

administration’s accommodation of US troops in the country. Mr. Ocampo

is cool in delivering his statement, but the message is hot.

Unfortunately, only a handful of fellow legislators are listening. Many

of the legislators are outside the hall, and they return to the session

hall only when the roll call is made. For those in the hall, they seem

bored, and this boredom is infectious.


Congress is not at all boring, though. Tired of the deliberations

occurring at the session hall? Then try doing something different.

Visit the museum, for example, which is off the beaten track. Those who

stumble onto the museum are students and excursionists compelled by

their schools and offices to have a field trip in Congress. A short

tour of the museum may leave the visitor jaded, but one’s curiosity is

aroused by some mementos.


For example, apart from being a historical document, the first House

bill filed in the 1st Congress of the Philippines provides amusement.

House Bill No. 1 of the 1st Congress is titled: “An Act Providing for

the execration of Japan and the Japanese, and for other purposes.”

Miguel Tolentino, congressman from the first district of Batangas,

filed this bill on March 31, 1945. In his introduction, Representative

Tolentino wrote: “The main purpose of the bill is to perpetuate a

profound hatred for Japan and everything Japanese in this country. This

is the least that the Filipino people can do in just and due

retaliation for the horrible atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese

during their savage and inhuman rule over the Philippines.”


The politically correct among us will ridicule this bill. But the bill

was perfectly understandable in its historical context. In the wake of

the brutality and aggression of Japanese fascism in the Philippines,

Mr. Tolentino’s bill was an expression of many Filipinos’ sentiments at

the time. Mr. Tolentino – may he rest in peace – can thus be forgiven

for the vulgar language.


In this age, the bills filed in Congress no longer contain vulgar or

obscene language. But a number of bills are still amusing. To be blunt,

one can always find bills that are silly and comical. Go to the

archives and randomly pick the Order of Business for a particular

session. There, one finds the list of bills on first reading that will

be referred to the congressional committees.


Take House Bill No. 5056 authored by Representative Salapuddin titled:

“An Act Establishing a Special Economic Zone and Free Port in the

entire province of Basilan, providing funds therefore and for other

purposes.” Mr. Salapuddin assumes that Basilan has many advantages

attractive to investors (including peace and order?), comparable to

Subic, to make it the next growth center of the Philippines.


Mr. Salapuddin seems to be a prolific drafter of congressional bills.

His House Bill No. 5066 is entitled: “An Act Increasing the Privilege

Discounts of Senior Citizens from Twenty Percent (20%) to Forty Percent

(40%) amending for the purpose Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 7432, and for

other purposes.” Mr. Salapuddin must go back to school and take a

remedial course in basic economics. He has forgotten that there is no

such thing as a free lunch – as the saying goes. But perhaps this is

because he has been accustomed to having free lunches, given the many

privileges accorded a congressman, that he thinks that such privilege

can be given to the citizenry. Very generous of him.


We can nevertheless expect Congress to eventually thrash these bills.

What can really deceive are bills that seem to make sense (and are

morally acceptable) but in fact will only aggravate the problems that

they intend to solve. An example is House Bill No. 5061, authored by

Representative Barbers, entitled: “An Act Increasing the Penalties for

Jueteng and other Illegal Numbers Games, amending for the purpose

Presidential Decree No. 1962, and for other purposes.” The bill

presumes that higher penalties will discourage jueteng.


On the contrary, higher penalties will only result in increasing the

cost of bribe and “protection.” So long as the jueteng lords are in

connivance with politicians, the courts and the police, jueteng will

prosper. (As Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has said, we need a “strong

republic.”) Jueteng is alive and kicking, despite the scandal and

political fallout it triggered that toppled Joseph Estrada from the

presidency.


Even from a legislative viewpoint, it would be far better to legalize

jueteng. But such type of “heretical” bill is not likely to gain

ground. Besides, the arguments for legalization are sophisticated and

even technical, requiring the bill sponsor to be knowledgeable and have

expertise. In a word, the typical legislator, even the honest one, has

no incentive to push this kind of bill.


Legislators must be knowledgeable and fully informed to perform their

main function of making and approving laws. This unfortunately is a

cliche; moreover, it is not a characteristic of Philippine legislators.

Many scholars have argued that the value of information, knowledge and

expertise in Congress is significantly affected by institutional

arrangements. In the Philippine context, the conditions do not

encourage legislators to value information and specialization.


First of all, the voters do not have sufficient information about what

their representatives are doing in Congress. The legislators therefore

can act silly and get away with poor performance, aware that their

constituents do not know what they are doing.


The media institutions are also at fault, for they are deficient in

informing the public about the substantive and strategic issues facing

Congress.


The political culture and the established rules in Congress do not

create the incentive either for the congressmen to value information

and expertise. The appointment of chair of committees is principally

determined not by one’s competence or expertise but by favoritism,

patronage and horse-trading. There are also too many committees (and

too many meetings), some of them redundant, making it virtually

impossible for legislators to keep track of the major issues and

developments. Further, the budget for research and policy analysis is

limited. Worse, congressmen are not even required to allocate office

funds for research. (Even the brilliant Joker Arroyo, as congressman

and senator, does not maintain a technical staff). The so-called think

tank of the Lower House often serves as a political tool of the Speaker.

But arguably the greatest obstacle to developing congressional

expertise is that the Congress is swayed by vested interests.


Representatives are expected to respond to their constituents’ need and

interests. But the constituency is an amorphous group made up of

individual citizens who, by themselves, cannot really exert pressure on

their representatives. More precisely, legislators are captured by the

elite who have the organization and the resources to mount a successful

lobby.


Key legislation is influenced, if not shaped, by the political lobby

and the “market” where rules can be bought to favor a particularistic

group. Congress members’ positions or views are driven by the lobby

interests and not by any objective or technical analysis of a

particular issue. A “captured” legislator will not waste time and money

seeking information that does not serve his or his clients’ personal

interest. The information or technical analysis that he will search for

is one that will fit his bias or his client’s preference.


We have cited a few examples of institutional arrangements that degrade

the substance of the legislative work in Congress. A reshaping of the

institutional and governance arrangements has to happen to make

Congress and its members appreciate the role of information and

expertise in their work.


Until then, we must make do with a Congress whose apparent idea of

legislation involves amusing and entertaining the people – at a great

cost at that.

bottom of page