It comes as no surprise that Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri has put into question the relevance and independence of the Senate as an institution. Although devoid of any factual basis at this time, it is not entirely unthinkable that the once distinguished upper house of Congress could be abolished for several reasons. Not the least of which is the quality of our elected senators who make up the bunch.

Presently, we have only five lawyers sitting in the Senate. Pia Cayeteno, Escudero and Pangilinan from UP Diliman, Alan Cayetano from Ateneo Law and Marcoleta from San Sebastian. While there are records of Jinggoy Estrada (Lyceum) and Imee Marcos (UP Diliman) going to law school, there is no confirmation that they were conferred Bachelor of Laws degrees.

There are two PMA graduates (Lacson and Dezla Rosa). Three journalists (Legarda and the Tulfo brothers). Four movie actors (Lapid, Padilla, Sotto and Estrada). Business, religious and political scions in the Villar siblings, Zubiri, Aquino and Gatchalian.

Villanueva is from the religious group, Jesus Is Lord; Hontiveros has been a known activist; and Bong Go has served as a sidekick of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

Given its composition, what can we expect in terms of the quality of political and legal discourse from these senators? Sure, we have the electorate to blame for electing them but shouldn’t we require some higher qualification to be a senator of the Philippines?

So why are we spending at least P13 billion a year for the upkeep of offices for 24 people whose mandate is to legislate the same laws as the lower house? Why is there a need to have an upper house in addition to a lower house? What distinction merits the establishment of two houses of Congress when their mandates are the same?!?

While the lower house is also flawed, at least they purport to represent an equitable portion of the population and lobby for their district’s interests. If at all, the main argument against them is a political, ethical, or moral one, not an issue against the legal framework as established under the Constitution.

Perhaps if there’s a more substantial delineation of roles and mandates between the upper and lower houses, where the Senate has jurisdiction over national spending while the House deliberates on district budgets. Or if senators were not elected at large but by region with the number per region determined by their population to make for an equitable representation in the crafting of the national budget and legislation.

As it stands, the Senate has lost much of its relevance and its distinction as an august and distinguished body. The senators get the public’s attention mainly during Senate investigations that, by the way, are mostly intended for grandstanding and to gain media mileage.

Very rarely do the probes result in any meaningful legislative reform. Most investigations of criminal or administrative wrongdoings overlap with the mandates of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies like the Department of Justice, Office of the Ombudsman, National Bureau of Investigation and Commission on Audit.

Again, as controversial as this may sound, there is a REAL need to revisit our Constitution and make our government framework more responsive and streamlined not only for operational efficiency but also frugal government spending. I really think the time has come to open our minds to amending our Constitution.