Arroyo takes over as new leader of the House
FORMER PRESIDENT and Pampanga Rep. Gloria M. Arroyo, within the hour before the 4 p.m. scheduled delivery of the State of the Nation Address (SONA), walked up the Speaker’s rostrum and took an oath, officiated by Ang Kabuhayan Rep. Dennis C. Laogan.
But Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez remained at his House leadership post as President Rodrigo R. Duterte delivered his 3rd SONA on Monday.
The House of Representatives as of writing was holding a special session in an attempt to make Ms. Arroyo’s speakership official.
“Certainly it was different. It was not regular. There was no roll call. There was no mace; so, how do you determine whether there was quorum or not,” Rep. Romero S. Quimbo told reporters.
“But the vote showed... majority, if you look (if ) there’s any rule in Congress, the most basic is majority always rules.”
A manifesto supporting Ms. Arroyo as Speaker, replacing Mr. Alvarez, was circulated among members, garnering a total of 161 signatures.
Among those who abstained were Reps.: Romero S. Quimbo, Jorge B. Banal, Francis Gerald A. Abaya, Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte, Teddy B. Baguilat, Jr., Kaka J. Bag-ao, Jocelyn S. Limkaichong, Gary C. Alejano, Josephine
R. Sato, and Christopher V.P. de Venecia.
House Minority Leader Danilo E. Suarez explained majority of the House members recognized Ms. Arroyo as the Speaker of the House, but the President allowed Mr. Alvarez to stay as the Speaker for the SONA.
There was an appeal for a status quo, Mr. Suarez said, because if no one gave in, there would not have been a House Speaker during the SONA.
Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero A. Pichay Jr., said it was Mr. Duterte who requested that “former Speaker Alvarez be allowed to preside.”
CHARTER CHANGE
Mr. Alvarez, in his speech at the opening of the session, pushed for a “self-executory anti-political
dynasty provision” in his bid to amend the 1987 Constitution.
He said that while he is amenable to anti-dynasty provisions, imposing term limits have an “unintended effect,” which results in the proliferation of political dynasties.
“Let’s push for the self- executory antipolitical dynasty provision… but I propose that term limits be removed.”
Political analysts, however, do not share his view, maintaining that a term limit is vital in keeping a democratic nation.
“The purpose of term limits was to enhance democracy, to give others a chance to govern or to represent constituents. It also is a good way of encouraging innovation in governance,” University of the Philippine (UP) Law professor Antonio G. La Viña told
BusinessWorld in a text message.
“Term limits did have the effect of giving incentives for family members to run to protect the family interest. The rationale (all) together of the anti-dynasty provision is to prevent that travesty. In any case, term limits and prohibition are both good for democracy,” Mr. La Viña added.
Also sought for comment, Dr. Perlita M. Frago-Marasigan, UP Political Science assistant professor, said, “Politicial dynasties thrive not because of term limits but because of the greed of political dynasties for power.”
She noted that term limits enable democracy in a country as it allows others to have a chance to rule.
“If you eliminate political dynasty by removing the very mechanism ( having term limits) that prevents self-perpetuation of power, then you can have an elected official that can rule as long as he/she pleases,” she said.
Mr. Alvarez further asserted that the stumbling block to the country’s full realization of “its potential for growth and development” has been the Constitution, and not the political leaders.
In contrast, Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III emphasized the importance of keeping the 1987 Consitution in place.
“Tradition is also a useful guidepost to temper our desire for novel adventures and experimentation. To do otherwise is to court disaster,” Mr. Sotto said as he opened the session in Senate.