Senate: A failed institution?

Is the Philippine Senate a failed institution? The tragicomic events that occurred in the Senate this past week have brought this question to the public. It is the sad judgment of more and more Filipinos that this once proud institution has now become a failed organization.

The question now is whether we abolish the Senate or find some method of restoring its dignity.

The Philippine Senate has a long history. It was established in 1916 under the Jones Law during the American colonial period. It was envisioned as a stabilizing body that would represent national interests in comparison to the Lower House which would represent narrow, local concerns. Unlike members of the House of Representatives, senators were elected nationwide. This was supposed to encourage them to think beyond provincial politics and to focus on broader national issues. Throughout Philippine history, the Senate has produced some of the country’s most respected statesmen. Figures such as Manuel Quezon, Claro Recto, Lorenzo Tañada, Jose Diokno and Ninoy Aquino used the Senate as a platform to advocate for nationalism, human rights and accountability. During the years before martial law, the Senate was regarded as a center of intellectual debate and government oversight.

These senatorial functions are sorely missing in today’s Senate. We seldom hear intellectual debates on the floor of the Senate nowadays. Sometimes, my impression is that many if not most of the senators are not interested in engaging in intelligent policy debates. They are more attuned to personal criticisms and investigations rather than intelligent discourse.

The Senate was abolished during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. In 1972, after the declaration of martial law, Congress was abolished and replaced by the Batasan Pambansa under the 1973 Constitution. The abolition of the Senate during the martial law regime must have influenced the framers of the 1987 Constitution after the restoration of democracy under President Cory Aquino.

During the drafting of the 1987 Constitution, one of the most debated questions was whether the country should restore a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives or adopt a unicameral legislature. Many delegates believed that restoring the Senate was necessary to prevent the return of authoritarian rule.

The framers argued that a bicameral system of government created checks and balances within Congress itself. The Senate was supposed to review legislation passed by the House, investigate executive abuse and act as an independent national body which was considered to be less vulnerable to local political pressure. The Senate was therefore perceived to go beyond simply making laws but also to serve as a body that would safeguard the Constitution. The Senate was therefore empowered to confirm treaties, to hold impeachment trials and to approve major national appointments and conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

The senators would be elected at large by the entire nation. It would assume that this would give them broader perspectives, greater independence than district representatives and focus on major policy issues.

However, recent events have revealed the weakness of this institution. Senate leadership often change through political maneuverings rather than because of ideological disagreements. Coalitions form and reform depending on the influences of national leaders, public popularity or vested interests.

This has led many critics to again question whether the Philippine Senate has become a failed institution. It has become dominated by family dynasties and vested interests. Although senators are elected nationally, many come from powerful political families with extensive financial resources. The national scope of senatorial elections has also given an advantage for those with media visibility, especially those from the world of entertainment. Elections have therefore favored also celebrities, members of political clans or wealthy individuals rather than policy experts and reform-oriented candidates.

There is also a perception that Senate investigations are sometimes motivated by politics rather than genuine public accountability.

Another criticism is legislative inefficiency because bills must pass both chambers, important reforms can be delayed because of political conflict or duplication.

Supporters of a unicameral legislature argue that a single legislative chamber would be faster, cheaper, more responsive to public needs.

Despite this criticism, declaring the Senate as a failed institution may be too rash and simplistic a judgment. After all, in the past, the Senate has demonstrated institutional courage. There have been periods when senators have successfully investigated corruption scandals, challenged executive overreach and defended constitutional freedom.

The framers of the 1987 Constitution feared the concentration of power under a dictatorship. It was believed that democratic institutions must contain internal safeguards against authoritarianism. A bicameral legislature must have been viewed by the framers as one of those safeguards.

The debate over the Senate’s effectiveness is also a reflection of the debate regarding the political system in our country. Most of our institutions have the same weaknesses of being dominated by political dynasties, a patronage system, celebrity politics and corruption.

My faith in the Philippine Senate is based on the presence of a few courageous senators who have proven to be policy experts and still retain integrity and bravery. It is up to us, the public as a whole, to publicly and vigorously support these senators. If we do not, then this Philippine Senate is doomed to be a failed institution.

*      *      *

Writefest 2026, Write Things’ summer workshop for young writers begins tomorrow, 3 p.m. at Fully Booked BGC. It is a hybrid six-session workshop (MWF – 3 sessions via Zoom, 3 face to face), 3-5 p.m. till May 29.

Register here: bit.ly/summerwritefest2026.