Commentary on the Pimentel Proposal, Part I: Lazy Legislature

Thanks to @laibcoms, I was able to get access to Senate Joint Resolution No. 10, entitled "Joint Resolution to Convene the Congress Into a Constituent Assembly for the Purpose of Revising the Constitution to Establish a Federal System of Government", authored by Senator Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel, jr., et al.

Click on this link to Laibcom's post on the resolution. The interpretations that he's laid down on the post are in themselves thought-provoking.

That said, I'm going to take a slightly different tack, and will instead pore over other details of the resolution. I hope to see others do the same.

(Beats wasting time over Bikoy's alleged brod's intellectual gifts -- or rather, lack of them.)

***
The first thing I noticed while going back and forth over the document was how it seemed that the revision would encourage laziness on the part of the legislature.

First contributor to the legislators' laziness would be the quorum -- the quorum requirements do not encourage attendance.

For instance:

Page 7, line 25

Revision No. 6.

Section 16 paragraph (2) A. Article VI. Senate - Quorum.

Unless the subject matter requires a specific number of votes to pass it pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution, the presence of, at least, fifteen senators shall be sufficient to provide a quorum for the Senate to do business in any regular or special session.

Out of the 75 senators who will be elected in this new framework, only 15 are needed to form a quorum -- just 20%. Now, for a vote to pass, 8 senators will constitute a simple majority, which is 11% of the senators.

Such is a far cry from the 50% plus 1 (39 senators) which is the norm of a quorum under Robert's Rules of Order.

The same situation is replicated in the House of Representatives.

Page 9, line 1

Revision No. IO.

Section 16 (2) 6. Article VI. House of Representatives - Quorum is hereby revised as follows:

Section 16 (2) B. Article VI. House of Representatives - Quorum. Unless the subject matter requires a specific number of votes to pass it pursuant to the Constitution, the presence of forty members shall be sufficient to constitute a quorum for the House of Representatives to do business in any of its regular or special sessions.

Imagine this concept: 40 out of 350 senators (11%) to form a quorum, and 21 to constitute a simple majority of the quorum (6% of the total population).

Yet the same situation with state legislatures.

Page 26, line 16

Revision No. IO.

New Section. Article X. State Legislature - Quorum.

In determining their respective quorums, State Legislatures shall observe the following rules: (a) For State Legislatures with sixty or more members, the presence of, at least, ten members; (b) For State Legislatures with less than sixty but with forty or more members, the presence of, at least, seven members; and (c) For State Legislatures with less than forty members, the presence of, at least, five members shall be sufficient to provide a quorum for their regular or special sessions.

The numbers are, respectively, 17% (minimum, 10 out of 60), 12% (maximum, 7 out of 59), and 13% (maximum, 5 out of 39) for a quorum. Simple majority numbers would be 10% (minimum, 6 out of 60), 7% (maximum, 4 out of 59), and 8% (maximum, 3 out of 39).

What will the absentees be up to, anyway?

On a darker note, not only do the small quorum requirements promote laziness (heck, the small quorums resemble committee hearings instead of plenary sessions), but I would think that the small quorums also create the risk of bills and resolutions being ramrodded through the legislatures. The majority could very well lie in wait for sessions where the minority are absent, and then rubber-stamp bills at will, needing not too many warm bodies to approve a bill.

There goes republican representation.

***
But still more on laziness: no longer will legislators feel the importance of their presence during a session, what with quorum requirements being small, the frequency of sessions are likewise not conducive to business. Consider this gem:

page 25 line 1

Revision NO. 6.

New Section. Article X. State Legislature - Meetings.

The State Legislatures shall meet in session at least once but not more than twice every month on a day and time fixed by their Rules. The members of the State Legislatures shall convene their first session within thirty days after the elections of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Imagine that: twice a month, maximum, and the quorum requirements are small.

***
To wrap up this post, I will opine that these revisions above do not encourage our legislators to do their jobs.

Heck, it would seem that these revisions are designed so that the legislators enjoy a free ride -- at taxpayers' expense, of course.

Senator Pimentel, with all due respect, these ideas of yours are irresponsible. Hell, they're idiotic.

'Nuff said.




Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!