MANILA, Philippines?The block of Nacionalista Party president Manuel Villar tried to pull a fast one by proclaiming its boycott of Senate sessions as a move motivated by the desire to derail two administration proposals with dangerous implications. This was, of course, far from the truth, but it made for a satisfying press release.

The two administration measures were photo-finish efforts, filed in the last quarter of 2009. They were meant to guarantee two administration stalwarts with fixed terms, to keep them in place beyond May regardless of who ends up elected president.

The first measure, House Bill 6568, or the proposed Philippine Immigration Act of 2009, was sponsored by Rep. Pedro Romualdo of Camiguin and 10 other representatives. It was passed by the House on third and final reading and sent upstairs to the Senate, which then adopted Senate Bill 3404. The bill was reported out of committee with the signatures of Senators Francis Escudero, Edgardo Angara, Panfilo Lacson, Joker Arroyo, Gregorio Honasan, Ramon ?Bong? Revilla, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Rodolfo Biazon, Lito Lapid, Francis Pangilinan, Manuel Villar and Miguel Zubiri. Senators Richard Gordon, Jamby Madrigal, Loren Legarda, Mar Roxas, Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Estrada and Aquilino Pimentel Jr. signed with the intention to amend.

Aside from granting Marcelo Libanan a fixed term, the law would give him the power to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against any alien who is perceived in violation of immigration laws and regulations or who is determined as undesirable. Libanan would also be empowered to legalize the stay of illegal or undesirable aliens. These powers represent a usurpation of judicial and legislative powers??determination of probable cause? being the prerogative of prosecutors and judges, and ?legalizing the stay of illegal aliens? being an amnesty power that?s the prerogative of Congress. In any case, the consolidated version limited Libanan?s extension to one year, in a transitory capacity, allowing the next president to appoint an immigration chief for a full term thereafter.

The second measure is House Bill 6989, sponsored by Speaker Prospero Nograles and Rep. Amado Bagatsing and 44 others on Nov. 16, 2009. It aims to give the chairman of Pagcor, Ephraim Genuino, a fixed term of three years. This bill had a more difficult time going through the House and in late January, the Speaker himself said it might not prosper ?for lack of material time.?

The Genuino bill had more generous counterparts upstairs: Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Senator Gordon?s Senate Bill 3469 proposed six years for Genuino; Lapid?s Senate Bill 3476 proposed seven years. The bills, according to one report, were filed two days apart with identical explanatory notes: ?To maintain the trust and confidence of the investors and to ensure continuity in the [Entertainment City] project which already started, the need to fix the terms of office of the members of Pagcor Board of Directors, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and President and Chief Operating Officer becomes imperative. Pagcor?s vision to be a catalyst for economic growth and national development will gain headway if there is continuity in its thrusts and programs.? The two were merged in Senate Bill 3575 signed by Gordon, Revilla, Angara, Zubiri and Pimentel (with serious reservations) on Feb. 1.

Genuino has demonstrated a zest for partisan politics, running his son in Makati in 2007 and in 2010. Pagcor is widely believed to have its own pet party list, Bigkis (No. 119 on the Comelec list of approved party-list parties despite having failed to be elected in three elections in a row: failure twice in a row should?ve disqualified it). Denying the next president a Pagcor appointment would have immense political value for Genuino and his patroness, President Macapagal-Arroyo.

Clearly, the legislation partook of class legislation, benefiting a particular class of people, close allies of the incumbent. The NP bloc justified its dodging Senate scrutiny for its party chief on the ex-post facto pretext that the boycott was to derail these bills. It assumed others would have approved the handicapping of the next president of the Philippines, which is speculative, at best. The bills were collateral damage, not the purpose of the NP boycott.