Who does the Lower House Represent?

IN THE recent hearings on the ABS-CBN franchise renewal at the House of Representatives (HOR), the chairman of the Committee on Good Government and Accountability – Rep. Jose Antonio R. Alvarado-Sy (1st District, Bulacan) – made it a point to repeatedly call the legislative chamber the “House of the People” in his opening statements.

The hearings, jointly held with the Committee on Franchises, is cast publicly over social media and ABS-CBN’s remaining narrowcast effort via cable, digital transmission channels and the internet. Alvarado-Sy’s statement plays up to the general public that the HOR’s actions are part of the process and practice of the representative democracy for which the legislative body exists.

The 1987 Constitution mandates the existence of a legislative department in its Article IV, basically tasked with the creation and revision of laws of the land, so long as these are in specific implementation of and consistent to the fundamental law.

It goes on that this legislature is Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the HOR, with the former having 24 members elected nationally and the latter with about 250 members from city districts each with 250,000 voters and one per province, plus 20% of the total number from parties of marginalized and underrepresented sectors or partylists.

Those HOR membership numbers, of course, were determined in 1987 and through the years since then more districts were created from larger populations and geographic political divisions, plus more districts represented means more members thus a larger 20% of the total meaning more partylist representatives. Thus today, in the 18th Congress since 1987, there are 304 HOR seats.

While the Constitution defines who these HOR members represent, it does not define how they are represented, except that they are popularly chosen during election time.

There are HOR members who believe that their acts, decisions and statements are being done so with full authority of their constituents granted upon their election. They believe they have carte blanche from their constituents.

On the other hand, some members of the HOR view their duties as representing their constituents with constant consultation, keeping their ear on the ground and sensitive to the voice and views of their districts or parties.

There is a big difference between these points of view because they will determine the conduct of their voting on key issues set forth before them and how these issues will affect their constituents ultimately.

Take for example the ABS-CBN franchise renewal. In the end the fate the company, its 11,000 of the station’s employees, and the 70 million viewers of its TV broadcasts will be affected by a closure. The impact of the current closure of its TV and radio stations all over the country was instantaneous, especially with citizens in the far regions greatly affected by the lack of information when a strong typhoon hit.

The members of the HOR currently act as prosecutor, defender, judge and jury all rolled into one body, and politicians will vote on whether or not to grant the ABS-CBN franchise in a totally political process. Whether or not judicially accepted evidence will matter is not on the table. The franchise is, after all, a created law.

The question is: will these HOR members vote because of their political whim or agenda, since they see their constituents gave them the full authority to do what they want by voting for them? Or will they vote because they’ve heard the voice of their constituents telling them to vote for or against the station’s franchise renewal? Surely many of these negatively affected viewers or employees are constituents of these Representatives.

The political process of our representative democracy is indeed a tricky one. History has shown that more often than not HOR members have chosen a path created solely for a political agenda. Just take the recent passing of a Bill to increase election spending limits by candidates.

Much earlier too, in fact since the 1987 constitution was created, Congress has not acted upon a fundamental mandate that “Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.” There has been multiple census taken since 1987, yet Congress has not acted upon a national reapportionment as mandated by the constitution and mere piecemeal reapportionments when politically viable.

In the US there is a saying that, when you want something done, “write your congressman.” Perhaps it’s about time we let our representatives directly know how we feel about what they’re doing in our name.