This is my position reaction paper submitted to my Constitutional Law class last Saturday, March 5, 2010. The topic of this paper is my point of view of what one point of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should be amended or revised. My class mates have went from dynasties to economic patrimony. However, I want to tackle this one because it is one of the things people tend to forget.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
The Legislative Department, the branch of the State that is mandated to formulate and enact laws, is composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They are elected by the people. Requisites of becoming a member of the House of Representatives are embraced in Section 6 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
On the other hand, for the Senators, the prevailing section in the 1987 Constitution is Section 3 Article VI:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
II. THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE
The requisites to become member of the Legislative body, aside from winning the elections, are pretty much simple. Given these set of requisites, it is quite easy to get the position. The dilemma arises after being voted to the office.
People do not hear anything from the most lawmakers after being voted to the office. These lawmakers, most of the time, keep themselves mum on vital situations and in supporting bills. If they so speak, it is evident that they are just taking a hitch on popular and media – disseminated controversies, giving unsolicited or unsupported accusations or opinions. There are legislative inquiries where the presences of some of them are seen but when they are given the floor to speak, it becomes evident that they do not know what the issue is, or what is the legal basis or the law covering the issue. A classic example of this one is the events transpired on the legislative inquiry on the Gen. Rabusa – Corruption in the Military case. Moreover, they cannot give any intelligent information or inquiry that will shed light to the problem. Also, there is a handful of bills to be passed and laws to be amended, revised, or repealed that is very much needed by the country, but the lawmakers are not giving attention to these important matters. The sad thing is, despite almost doing nothing fruitful and desirable during their terms, they still get their salaries and pork barrels essentially coming from the pockets of the citizen – tax payers!
It can be gleaned that being a lawmaker does not only need popularity, but also intelligence, knowledge on the basics of the laws and constitution of our country and the essence of being a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, and comprehension on events. Their task is not as easy as saying “one, two, three”. Whatever they do, singly or collectively, has a great impact in the country and their constituents, so much so that doing nothing also has much influence. Hence, a simple set of requirements for the position does not commensurate the responsibility they have to bear.
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is just timely to amend or revise the present Constitution and to include in its revision or amendment the addition of educational attainment in the requirements for being a member of the House of Representatives or / and the Senate, which is the persons running to the said office should have at least finished College / bears a Tertiary Diploma from college institutions, universities or state colleges accredited by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), with completed or passed subjects of Philippine History and Constitutional Law.
Such addition of requisites will somehow ensure that these lawmakers know the basics to equip them in doing their tasks. These are enough since placing a much higher education, such as finishing Master’s Degree or Bachelor of Laws, would invite a situation as to a certain economic class of people monopolizing the office.
