Belmonte and absenteeism in House
As reported in the media, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte has raised the possibility of a reenacted 2014 budget should Congress fail to pass the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2015 because of lack of quorum particularly during the budget deliberations in the House (“‘Not the end of the world,’ Speaker allays fears of reenacted budget,” 9/20/14). He was quoted as saying that “we have never succeeded in getting a full crowd” during House sessions.
This is a startling revelation emanating as it does from the Speaker. It is a virtual admission of helplessness in dealing with lazy congressmen, an alarming disclosure as it betrays a disturbing weakness in his leadership and a worrisome unfamiliarity with his role as the House’s presiding officer.
Belmonte should be reminded that Section 16(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that “a smaller number” of congressmen (meaning less than a majority) “may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide” (underscoring supplied). This constitutional power or coercive jurisdiction of the “smaller number” to compel the attendance of absent members was recognized by the Supreme Court in Avelino vs Cuenco (83 Phil. 17). Evidently, the exercise by Congress of its power to penalize absenteeism among its members as conferred by the Constitution may take the form of censure, reprimand, fine or deprivation of salary and other perks or privileges for a reasonable period.
As presiding officer, it behooves the Speaker to guide and steer such smaller group among his colleagues into discharging such constitutional function.
Belmonte must also be reminded that from Administrative Law perspective, he is at the same time its administrative head. In such capacity, it is within his power to instill discipline among his colleagues.
Frequent absence of a congressman from House sessions without any valid justification smacks of dereliction of duty; this deserves the stiffest sanctions from the House itself. Surely, chronic absenteeism in Congress adversely affects the performance of the absent members’ duties or the House’s lawmaking processes. It cannot be countenanced nor tolerated. It deserves to be condemned as a reproachable, reprehensible conduct. It is a sad reflection on the capacity of the absentee congressman to render faithful and dedicated service to the people that he represents. It is the height of irresponsibility given the constitutional command for all public officers to serve the people with “utmost responsibility.” (Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
The attendance of House members at every session in order to ensure a quorum is a prime concern of the Speaker. It certainly inheres in his responsibility to see that the legislative work in the House is not disrupted or paralyzed by chronic absenteeism among the congressmen.
Now, if only Speaker Belmonte has the political will to assert the coercive jurisdiction of the House to compel the attendance of absent members under pain of penalty, he may yet succeed in “getting a full crowd.”
—BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ JR.,
retired senior commissioner,
Commission on Audit,
Makati City
