The recent proclamation of martial law in Maguindanao (which was lifted after only eight days) and the subsequent calling of a joint session of Congress to either revoke or affirm it have highlighted the dangers of unicameralism. They have also pointed up the need to amend the constitutional provision on the declaration of martial law.
Unicameralism may work well for certain countries, but not in the Philippines where many legislators adhere to a low standard of political morality.
Some quarters have been proposing the adoption of a unicameral parliamentary system in the event that the Constitution is amended, either by a constitutional convention or by Congress sitting as a constituent assembly. If the amendment of the Constitution is to be done by a constituent assembly, there is a strong possibility that a unicameral system would be adopted, given the past record of the members of the House of Representatives. We know from their past acts and decisions that they generally look only after their own interests, and not the interest of the entire nation. In a unicameral Congress or Parliament, with the Senate gone, who will then act as a check on the legislature?
Should a constitutional convention be called some time after the inauguration of the newly elected officials in 2010, we suggest that the constitutional provision on the declaration of martial law be amended. The present provision says that “[t]he Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. ”
The proclamation of martial law in Maguindanao was debated by Congress in joint session, but before the two chambers could vote, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo lifted the proclamation. The speculation, however, was that had the two chambers voted jointly, the proclamation would have been approved by Congress. The House, with 268 members, the great majority of whom were expected to vote to affirm the proclamation, would have drowned out the votes of the Senate, even if all 23 senators were to vote for revocation.
The congressmen have shown in the past that they are at the beck and call of Ms Arroyo. There were two instances when the pro-administration congressmen, bribed with pork barrel allotments or bags of cold cash, killed impeachment attempts against Ms Arroyo. Recently, the House dismissed the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez despite strong evidence of her inaction on many high-profile cases involving administration officials and allies.
Many people have questioned the political morality of the congressmen who have always tended to side with whoever is the president, who can distribute pork barrel allotments, bags of cash and other forms of patronage to them. And it is not only the present congressmen who are being criticized for engaging in transactional politics; congressmen in past administrations have not behaved or acted differently.
If a proposed unicameral Congress or Parliament will be dominated by people of the likes of the majority of our present congressmen, then woe unto the entire nation. A unicameral legislative body, without a Senate to act as a check on the other chamber, would just be a self-serving entity that would most of the time be a lapdog of the president or prime minister.
The constitutional provision on congressional action on the proclamation of martial law should be amended to make it easier for Congress to revoke a president’s martial law proclamation. The provision was intended to serve as a check on an abusive and repressive president who could use martial law to promote his interests and probably even pave the way for his perpetual stay in power.
The commissioners who drafted the 1987 Constitution were probably naïve to think that a future House of Representatives would be composed mostly of right-thinking people who would have the interest of the nation at heart. Of course, they were mistaken, and now that provision, which could be abused by a power-hungry president with the help of compliant congressmen, has to be amended. The proposed amendment should be one of the priority items if a constitutional convention will be called in the near future.