Large portraits, narrow doors

I found myself at the Senate of the Philippines last Friday to attend to a client-related matter. The night before, I took a late-night flight to Manila after a hectic day of Cebu Press Freedom Week activities.

Having studied workspace design, I have to say the building where our Senate is housed is underwhelming. Located at the GSIS Complex in Pasay City, near Manila Bay, it was supposed to be a temporary home. Yet the Senate has been there since 1997, when it moved from its historic home in the Old Legislative Building, now part of the National Museum.

Reports say the Senate is preparing to move to its permanent home at the New Senate Building in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, with mid-2027 as the target date. As early as 2024, the project drew scrutiny over its projected ?23-billion cost and concerns about construction quality and project management. Senator Chiz Escudero, then Senate president, ordered work suspended pending a review, further delaying the Senate’s transfer to its new home.

Still, after 29 years as the Senate’s home, the building has witnessed its share of historic events, including three impeachment trials, the latest of which involves the vice president. This was the reason I still had the urge to take some photos of the place. It was kind of amusing that among the photos I took was what looked like the same famous drab stairs where a senator scampered from the parking area to the session hall reportedly to avoid an ICC arrest warrant.

We often see the Senate on television, but being there feels different. Seeing our high officials in the flesh and watching them in action, you feel the atmosphere and the weight of the place. I felt somber, thinking of how much promise our country has and how often its political class stands in the way of what our people could achieve.

The oversized portraits of the senators lining the hall only added to that feeling. They already loom large over our public life. Apparently, they think we need to be reminded of that even in the Senate hallway.

Still, my brief time at the Senate ended on a positive note. Not often starstruck, but running into Senator Risa Hontiveros, one of the few senators I have long admired, and having a brief, pleasant chat with her definitely counts.

That brief encounter was a welcome reminder that there are still people in those halls worth believing in. I wish more capable Filipinos outside the familiar political families had a fair chance to get there.

The recent Supreme Court decision on political dynasties may give us some hope and a real opening for meaningful reform in our political system.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress must enact an anti-dynasty law, and its failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution imposes a constitutional duty to protect equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties.

To me, this goes to the heart of what holds our country back. Our people have so much to offer, but the doors to political leadership remain narrow for those without the right surname, connections, or machinery.

These are the sweetest words I have read from the Supreme Court, a welcome contrast to the heaviness I felt in the Senate halls last week:

“Given this, 39 long years should be considered more than enough time for Congress to enforce the prohibition against dynasties. Its consistent failure to so pass this vital constitutional measure constitutes a continuing violation of this duty, which has resulted in not just a possibility of, but actual loss in the form of the evils and injuries brought about by the proliferation of ruling political clans. Genuine electoral pluralism is suppressed, choice becomes an illusion, and democracy in its grandest sense is stifled.

“The concentration of political power within a narrow few has distorted democracy, weakened accountability, and fostered conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage. When a clear constitutional mandate is left unimplemented for generations, the resulting harm begins to reflect in diminished public trust and stagnant governance.”

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stressed in his concurring opinion that a meaningful prohibition should cover both relatives holding office at the same time and immediate succession within families, so that “new blood and a new brand of leadership may genuinely enter the government.”