Senate qua Senate
Could fresh linguistic constructs outmaneuver the true intent and purpose of what ‘the majority of all its members’ means in the constitutional text?
Text size
Daily TribuneCould fresh linguistic constructs outmaneuver the true intent and purpose of what ‘the majority of all its members’ means in the constitutional text?
Beyond all the legalese by disciplinary luminaries as well as by those from the highest judicial magistracy (i.e. associate justices, law deans, framers of the Constitution) invoking raw provisions based on a defunct Constitution when the same has already been superseded by at least two more Constitutions that follow would be akin to flogging a dead horse.
Whipping a dead animal will not compel it to do any work. Two Constitutions are enough to reject the purview of the so-called Avelino vs Cuenco in the context of contemporary times, the political landscape obtaining, the thrusts of good governance, the zeitgeist of public policy analysis, or the later scholarship work of students and scholars of public administration. Or so this writer thinks.
It’s not beyond one’s depth to understand the events of fresh memory, albeit a tsunami of commentators has joined the national conversation to share their views, opinions, and beliefs. Not strangely, we experience discordant voices, commentaries that cancel each other out, some ad libs that leave a bad taste in the mouth.
As the contemporary scheme and scene drag, it would have been convenient for the High Tribunal, when it would have passed judgment, to render the constitutional question moot and academic. Or so policy scientists believe.
It’s no longer of any moment how the final arbiter of judicial questions divines its judgment over the contentious state of disequilibrium in the day-to-day life of the Senate.
Since December of last year when the President promised to have come up with concrete, tangible, actionable results in the direction of placing behind bars or convictions laid down for those who directly masterminded the greatest looting, money heist if you will, of government coffers, no real justice has yet been served.
In the forthcoming State of the Nation Address next month, the President might be at total liberty to announce new policy directions, project timetables, the development agenda, vital priorities complete with roadmaps or menus on how to achieve them. Except if there’s going to be no election, mounting mass unrest, undeclared martial law or authoritarian rule — that ghost in the political machine.
Every senator matters and significantly so. Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano could not have dislodged Senator Tito Sotto without Senator Bato dela Rosa doing a commando entry to deliver the controlling vote of 13. Truly, it benefitted APC to regain their preeminence in running the affairs of the Senate. It was crucial for Sen. Rodante Marcoleta to superintend the flood control corruption probe as sub-committee chair of the Blue Ribbon Committee.
The political beach is under two political sharks — the new Gatchalian-led mediated by a quorum and the Cayetano-led mediated by a coup or loss of confidence in the old pro-administration occupant. In a series of motions, it’s beyond difficult to say who is the first mover. Unfortunately, this phenomenon might even lead to infinite regress by a vicious oversimplification of the mathematical equation called “majority of the membership.”
Contentions differ on whether the number of senators is effectively 22 or 24. From what commanding heights could it be properly declared that there are at present — minus Bato and minus Jinggoy — only 22 senators? Truly, the term “functional members” has gained traction in political discussions advanced by the “new majority bloc.” Is 24 just a number?
Could fresh linguistic constructs outmaneuver the true intent and purpose of what “majority of all its members” means in the constitutional text?
Something requires re-centering the core argument that could incontrovertibly defend the thesis that the “new majority bloc” is the true and legitimate pack in the Senate leadership.
While at this unsettling controversy, it cannot help but remind us of two relevant films, namely, The Prince and the Pauper as well as The Accidental Hero.
At the next turn quorum does the trick, somebody must burn the playbook. A quorum is not always right until it does right. Likewise, a coup is not always right until it does wrong.
