Wanted: Senator-heroes

The gridlock plaguing the Senate has plunged the nation into a political purgatory. Day after day, the Senate deadlock befuddles our people, who are already reeling from high prices, rising criminality, flood control corruption, the impeachment trial of the Vice President, and, recently, a devastating earthquake. Amid a clamor for the Supreme Court to step in, the Senate’s salvation, in my humble view, should come from a senator (or senators) willing to attend the sessions and cast the decisive 13th (and 14th, 15th, etc.) vote without need of judicial intervention.

TO BE FAIR, LET ME BRIEFLY TAKE UP THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWS on the Senate deadlock. On one hand, the “Gatchalian group,” led by recently elected Senate President Pro Tempore Sherwin Gatchalian, maintains that the 12 senators who remained in the Senate session on June 3 constituted a valid quorum. Consequently, they could continue—as in fact they did continue—tackling the Senate’s work.

They anchor their stance on Avelino v. Cuenco (Mar. 14, 1949, en banc), which held that only senators who are physically present in the session, excluding a member who was in the United States for medical treatment, should be counted in computing a quorum. In short, 12 constituted a quorum, and a majority vote of the 12 could validly deliberate and decide.

The Court stressed that “[w]hen the Constitution declares that a majority of ‘each House’ shall constitute a quorum, the House does not mean ‘all’ [its] members.” The Gatchalian bloc insists that the 1987 Constitution’s relevant provision stating that “[a] majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business …” (Article VI, Section 16[2]) is exactly the same as that used in the 1935 Constitution under which the Avelino case was decided.

On the other hand, the “Cayetano bloc,” led by previously elected Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, contends that to elect a Senate president, or ANY OTHER SENATE OFFICER, requires an absolute majority of 13 votes out of the 24 members, including those detained in prison or hiding as fugitives.

They rely on a strict textual interpretation of the 1987 Constitution mandating that “[t]he Senate shall elect its President … by a majority vote of all its respective Members” (Article VI, Section 16[1]). However, the two contending blocs agree that this “majority vote” to elect the Senate president (but not the others) should be computed at 13.

VERILY, THE CONTROVERSY LIES IN THE VOTE REQUIRED for the presence of a quorum and for the election of the “other” Senate officers, particularly that of the Senate president pro tempore. Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona (Nov. 18, 1998, en banc), which I had the honor of writing, observed that though the 1987 Constitution was explicit on the election of the Senate president, it was “dead silent on the manner of selecting the other officers …” The Constitution merely authorized each House to “determine the rules of its proceedings” (Article VI, Section 16[3]) in choosing “… such other officers as it may deem necessary” (Article VI, Section 16[1]). Under Rule II, Section 2 of the Rules of the Senate, “[t]he officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its members.”

This decision placed the election of the Senate president pro tempore squarely on the sound judgment of the upper chamber, which may change from time to time, as the need may arise. In short, the Senate remains the sole judge of its own choices.

For this reason, I firmly believe that the solution to the Senate paralysis rests on the heroism of the honorable senators, or even just one of them, just one patriotic member. While the judiciary has the expanded power and duty to check grave abuse of discretion, historical wisdom warns against prematurely and unnecessarily dragging the nonpolitical robes of justice into partisan landmines.

Until all internal political remedies within the chamber have been fully exhausted, the Court should be spared the job of legislative intervention.

LOOKING AT THE SENATE STALEMATE, I am reminded of Saint Paul. Before he became a great apostle, he was a flawed persecutor of Christians until he was dramatically blinded on the road to Damascus. His very blindness restored his vision to the beatific truth that an imperfect sinner could be redeemed and transformed into a biblical saint.

I believe the current impasse offers a unique opportunity for a similar redemption. The elusive 13th (and 14th, and 15th …) senator possesses the singular power to break this paralyzing deadlock. Should that heroic lawmaker(s) step forward to resolve the crisis, history will long and well remember him/her as an institutional hero, wiping away any past transgressions and partisan unworthiness.

Just as the road to Damascus required a flawed Paul to see the light of truth, our democratic architecture today requires a senator (or senators) willing to step out of the shadows of political sins. By restoring legislative stability, this solon(s) can find the clear-sighted courage of Paul and safely steer our Senate and our people from stagnation and confusion.

History never forgets the sinners, but more so, those who find the courage to redeem themselves.

—————-

Comments to [email protected]