AS I SEE IT WHY NOT?!?!?! hahaha

Tweet

AS I SEE IT Why don’t we abolish the House instead? By Neal Cruz Inquirer Last updated 00:36am (Mla time) 12/08/2006 Published on Page A14 of the December 8, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer IT IS now clear why we should not allow changes in the Constitution at this time, when the changes are to be made by incumbent congressmen. They have shown what they can do and will do once they grab power from the present bicameral Congress and transfer it to a unicameral Parliament. Through sheer force of numbers, they will bulldoze away all opposition to their wishes and railroad bills, never mind what the people think and deserve. We will see in the new Parliament frequent repetitions of their naked display of power at the House of Representatives the other night. Bills will be passed, not on the basis of merit, not because they are the best for the country, but because they have the numbers to ram their bills through the legislature; and not because they are what the nation needs, but because they are what the congressmen want. Imagine, the congressmen revised their own rules to ram through the House a provision short-circuiting the established process of enacting laws, just so they can pass the resolution calling for a constituent assembly to revise the charter. Rules, tradition, ethics, morality and good taste were all thrown out the window. If they can do that now when we still have two houses of Congress, imagine what they would do when they have parliament all to themselves. They would behave like a gang of thieves. "Garapal talaga!" [Really brazen!] If we really want a unicameral legislature, we should abolish the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Why abolish the Senate, when it is now the only power holding back the baying hounds of the House? If the new Constitution will abolish the House, the people are likely to vote overwhelmingly for it. That will save the taxpayers a lot of money otherwise spent for the salaries and allowances of congressmen, their staff, their offices, their vehicles, their traveling expenses, their "queridas" [mistresses] , and, most of all, their pork barrel which stands out as the biggest symbol of graft, corruption and all that is evil in that accursed House. We really don’t need a House of Representatives. All the legislation that we need can be crafted by the Senate. Bills of local application can be handled by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan [Provincial Boards]. The House wastes so much time changing the names of streets and schoolhouses. Besides, we have the provincial and regional development councils to map out the infrastructure and development projects in their respective areas. At present, the House often usurps the jobs of executive departments, particularly Public Works and Highways, Health, Education, Agriculture -- in fact, every department and agency where there is money to be made. Why should a congressman, for example, tell the Department of Public Works and Highways what roads and bridges to construct, and to even dictate which private contractor should get the contract? The job of congressmen is to enact laws, but each one of them acts as de facto secretary of public works, health, agriculture, etc. Congressmen actually overrule the department secretaries when it comes to projects in their respective localities. The reason, of course, is the kickbacks from contractors. The contractors kick back to the congressmen as much as half of the budget for a project. The cost of any project, therefore, doubles, while the congressman runs laughing all the way to the bank. Congressmen say it is they who know first-hand the needs of their districts so they should be the ones to identify what projects to build. But isn’t that the job of local government officials? A congressman who spends most of his time in Manila cannot know more about the needs of his constituents than a local official who lives and works with them in the province. Besides, there are the development councils of which the congressmen are members and therefore can propose projects for their districts. Besides, the salaries, allowances and other perks the whole year round for more than 200 congressmen are a big drain on the treasury. If we spend the money used to maintain the House on building more homes for the homeless, schools and roads and bridges, the Philippines could be a developed nation quickly. Anyway, we don’t need all the laws passed year in and year out by Congress. We need only a few of them and these can be done better by 24 senators instead of more than 200 congressmen who are always looking for ways to get rich. Some countries have legislatures that make laws only part of the year, not the whole year like we have here. Necessary bills are compiled and then discussed when the legislatures meet. Of course, the lawmakers are paid only for the time they spend in session. This leaves the government a lot of money that it plows back to the people. That also leaves the legislators enough time to spend in their districts and see the needs of their constituents first-hand. This saves not only time and money but also prevents legislators from grandstanding and wasting money. I think we should adopt that system. The system that the administration and its allies are proposing only wastes time and money, but the above system also saves the energies of legislators. Right now, Congress passes a lot of laws that are not enforced, anyway. Many of these laws the people don’t even know about. We now have so many laws, many of them contradictory, that the people haven’t heard about. So many that even lawyers, judges and Supreme Court justices cannot agree on the interpretation of some of them. This results in almost endless litigation and sometimes in the miscarriage of justice. Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.