ABOLITION OF THE CONGRESS AND SENATE

Affirmative Side:
Viarino, Mia Marie D. (main speech)
Fuentes, Edsel Ian (rebuttal)

Introduction:

To Atty. Ong and to our classmates, a pleasant evening!

First of all, allow me to introduce myself and my partner – I am Mia Marie Viarino,
and together with me is Mr. Edsel Ian Fuentes. We are here to rule on the affirmative
side on the “Abolition of the Congress and the Senate.”

Speech Proper:

As law students and even before we got into law school, we have heard about
Congress and Senate over a million times. It is impossible not to know these terms
yet, right?

But just to refresh ourselves….the Philippine government takes place in an

organized framework where the President is both the head of the state and the head
of the government. This system revolves around three separate and sovereign yet
independent branches, namely: the legislative branch (the law-making body), the
executive branch (the law-enforcing body), and the judicial branch (the law-
interpreting body). One basic consequence in a presidential system of government
is the principle of separation of powers wherein legislation belongs to Congress.

The Congress of the Philippines, consisting of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, is vested with the legislative power. The Legislative branch is
authorized to make laws and subsequently, when the need arises, to alter, and repeal
them, through the power vested in the Philippine Congress.

Although the Legislative Branch is vested with such power and although it provides
a representation for both regional and national interests, it also has various major
limitations and weaknesses, thus, the need for this branch to be abolished.

-----------

First Limitation / Weakness

First, duplications of efforts and serious deadlocks in the creation of laws are
inevitable. This is even evident in Section 27, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
which states three ways on how every bill passed by the Congress becomes law.

Initially, every bill shall be presented to the President for his approval. If the
President approves it, then he shall sign it. Otherwise, he shall veto it and
return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which
shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it.
Page 1 of 4
 Another way is that after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members
of such House shall agree to pass the bill, and shall send it to the other House
for their reconsideration too. If approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that House, then it shall become a law.

Lastly, the President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt. Otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.

Obviously, the exercise of legislative power is subject to express constitutional

limitation not only by the power vested in the executive branch, but also by the
power vested in the judicial branch.

Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that the judicial power
includes the duty of the Supreme Court to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

While a bill may be vetoed by the President, the Supreme Court, on the other hand,
ensures that the Legislatures do not go beyond the rules of the Constitution. If any
law or anything that Congress does is unconstitutional, the judicial branch will make
sure that they cannot get away with it.

-----------

Second Limitation / Weakness

Moreover, Section 26, Article VI of the Constitution provides that every bill passed
by either House of Congress shall undergo three readings on separate days before it
becomes a law. Notwithstanding the time-consuming and exhaustive procedure that
a bill has to go through, there is really no assurance as to the effectiveness and
efficiency of these considered and deliberated legislations.

Congress does not really have the power to lead. Yes, it is true that the Congress can
make or enact the laws, but Congress is very weak when trying to encourage the
people to support their cause.

In Imbong v. Ochoa, for example, Republic Act No. 10354 (Responsible

Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2021 “RH Law”) which was
enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012, faced challenges/petitions from
various sectors of the society.

The Congress in this particular instance had difficulty leading the public to support
the idea. This is because the Congress is so big and has so many members. No
individual member of Congress can speak for the whole body, making it harder to
get out and lead people to support a particular policy or cause. Sometimes, instead
of doing what is good for the country, the members of this branch will do what the

Page 2 of 4
majority party wants to do. If the members of the legislative branch are not willing
to work together, this could lead to a lack of productivity.

-----------

Third Limitation / Weakness

Furthermore, the prohibitive costs of senatorial elections make it possible for only
wealthy individuals to make it to the Congress.

In fact, in the Senate, based on their declared Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth (SALN) as of December 31, 2019, Senator Cynthia Villar and Senator
Manny Pacquiao remained the richest senators, both having accumulated over P3
billion in wealth each. But still, the “poorest” senators are hardly poor by regular
standards as their wealth appeared to be only a fraction of their colleagues’. The
senator with the smallest net worth was Senator Leila de Lima with P8.3 million.

We are not saying that it is not possible for a not-so-wealthy common tao to run for
a position in the Congress and still be elected by the people, but his chances of
winning and making it successfully may be a tough pursuit –especially if we would
have the consider the influence that the people manning the Congress already have.

In relation to this, since both the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected
officials, the Legislative branch is bound to have a divided house from different
parties. The Legislatures are supposed to be impartial in their approach in creating
laws that will best serve the general welfare and interest of the people. But in reality,
bills authored by some legislatures are opposed by his fellow congressman or
senator, not because of the merits of the bill, but rather on the conflict of interest
between separate political parties.

-----------

Effects of Abolishing the Congress

In abolishing the Congress and the Senate, the State, as represented by the President
will have a more efficient and effective system in enacting, amending, or repealing
laws.

Moreover, having a law-making body that does not burden an undivided house will
yield better advantages, as the law-making body would not need to waste time
attacking each other, and their personal interests to advance their own political party
will be set aside.

The Executive and Judicial branches of the government can remain, where the
former may handle both the law-making and law-enforcing duties. It would be easier
and faster for the Executive branch to enforce the law, as this branch will also be the
one responsible for the crafting of the provisions of a particular law. The proponents
from this branch know the real issue at hand, they know what rules and regulations

Page 3 of 4
to put in to better address these issues, and their proposed bill may become a law
without having to go through a tedious process.

While the major advantage of having a Legislative branch provides a system of

checks and balances, and prevents potential abuses of power, maintaining the said
branch can still lead to congestion that makes the passage of laws more difficult.
You may argue that maintaining only two branches of government may cause an
imbalance in our current system of government, considering that it will also be the
Executive branch who will also be acting as the law-making body and law-enforcing
bodies, all at once. But if you come to think of it, the Judicial branch still remains,
and it is their primary duty, as even mentioned earlier, to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of jurisdiction on the part of the other branch of the
Government. Anybody who abuses his official function may still be subjected to
judicial scrutiny.

As public servants, they shall, at all times, be accountable to the people and shall
discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty,
act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest. [Republic Act No. 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees]

And this, we shall end…. “Humayo’t itanghal, giting at tapang. Mabuhay ang pag-
asa ng bayan.” Let us be courageous enough to welcome a new form of government
that will better address the needs of our people, especially in these trying times. If
you can’t be brave enough, who else will?

Thank you so much for listening, and Mabuhay!

Page 4 of 4