Taxpayer money wasted on Pharmally probe
The Pharmally report of the Senate blue ribbon committee was not presented in plenary because it lacked the required number of signatures. At least 11 signatures of the committee members were needed so that the committee chairman could sponsor it.
It is a generally accepted principle in a parliamentary procedure that a member who refuses to sign a committee report simply disagrees with its content, especially the committee’s conclusion and recommendation. If this is the case, the member’s dissenting view should have been formalized in another written report known as dissenting or minority report.
I am in a quandary why members who refused to sign the committee report only made known at the 11th hour their dissenting view. Section 22 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation says that “within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the inquiry, the Committee shall meet to begin the consideration of its Report.”
They had all the ample time to prepare the minority report from the time the panel draft was prepared up to the day of its presentation and approval by a majority vote of all the senators. The report should have been approved en banc, I suppose, last June 1. Senate rules say that within 72 hours after the approval of the committee report, the dissenting report should have been made by the members who refuse to sign it.
Did we not just waste people’s money on this Senate investigation since we are deprived to know the content of the report of the blue ribbon committee?
REGINALD B. TAMAYO
Marikina City
[email protected]
MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
PH should learn from East Asian neighbors
Middlemen, overfishing make life difficult for fisherfolk
