Why lawmakers haven’t appeared at flood control hearings
MANILA, Philippines — As the Senate investigation into the flood control mess continues to yield explosive allegations of corruption, one question has persisted: Why have the lawmakers implicated in the controversy not been called to testify?
This has been the consistent gripe of former Blue Ribbon committee chair Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, who openly questioned Senate President Pro Tempore Ping Lacson for not summoning resigned lawmaker Zaldy Co to face the Senate’s hearings.
Lacson, however, invoked inter-parliamentary courtesy — a long-held tradition preventing one chamber of Congress from summoning members of the other.
“You have been a congressman for many years. We do not invite or summon members of Congress in the same manner that they don’t invite senators to their hearings,” Lacson told Marcoleta during a recent Blue Ribbon hearing.
Marcoleta pushed back during a later plenary session, arguing that such courtesy should not hinder the search for accountability.
“Ang pinag-uusapan natin ay problema kasangkot na po ang kinabukasan ng ating bansa. Sasabihin ba natin inter-parliamentary courtesy? Nakasulat ba sa bato yun? Absolute yun?” he asked. (We are talking about the problems facing our country’s future. Are we still going to say inter-parliamentary courtesy? Is it written in stone? Is it absolute?)
Co has since resigned from the House of Representatives and now faces a possible Senate subpoena. But inter-parliamentary courtesy, though unwritten, remains a deeply respected practice.
While Marcoleta is correct in noting there is no no law upholding the inter-parliamentary courtesy, not all norms governing congressional and democratic proceedings are set with pen and ink, scholars have noted. Courtesy, in particular, has long prevented members of either chambers of Congress from crossing over.
A Supreme Court circular once described the rule as a “time-honored tradition” that ensures smooth relations between the two chambers, even if it does not carry the force of law.
“While inter-chamber courtesy is not a principle which has attained the level of a statutory command, it enjoys a high degree of obeisance among the members of the legislature, ensuring as it does the smooth flow of the legislative process,” the high courtt stated.
A bit of history
The principle has been invoked in several high-profile cases. During former president Joseph Estrada’s jueteng scandal. The House had asked the Senate, on the basis of inter-chamber courtesy, to terminate its probe into the scandal, as the power to file an impeachment complaint against an official rests on the lower chamber.
More recently, Sen. Bato dela Rosa refused to heed House lawmakers to appear at a hearing on the deadly drug war, which he implemented as police chief under former president Rodrigo Duterte. In declining the invitation, Dela Rosa cited inter-chamber courtesy.
In contrast, non-lawmakers like dismissed Bamban Mayor Alice Guo and preacher Apollo Quiboloy have been arrested for ignoring congressional summonses — a privilege not extended to legislators.
A turning point
The debate over inter-parliamentary courtesy gained new weight this week after Lacson announced his resignation as Blue Ribbon chair, citing waning support from colleagues.
Lacson, whose committee uncovered testimonies linking senators, House members, and contractors to flood control kickback schemes, said he sensed that members of the majority bloc were “no longer in full agreement” with how he conducted the inquiry.
“When my peers already lack faith in me... maybe stepping down is an option,” Lacson said, confirming he would formally submit his resignation to Senate President Vicente Sotto III.
Lacson had earlier said he would invite Rep. Martin Romualdez (Leyte), the former House speaker, to the ongoing probe. The invitation, however, would be coursed through Speaker Bojie Dy "out of courtesy."
- Latest
- Trending
