THIS anecdote might be apocryphal but it mirrors the unending row between the House and the Senate: A congressman was awakened in the dead of the night by his wife who had heard strange noise downstairs.

“Hon, wake up. I think there is a robber in the house,” said the wife who was almost in hysterics while frantically shaking the still sleepy congressman.

“A robber in the House? Don’t be silly. Maybe in the Senate,” the congressman said as he resumed his sleep.

No, no congressman has really charged that there could be robbers in the Senate. However, this does not mean that senators and congressmen are lovey-dovey with each other. Inter-chamber courtesy? Tell that to the Marines! I have often heard some senators speak disparagingly of the House, while some congressmen hit back now and then at the “smaller House.”

After the 2004 presidential election, Sen. Dick Gordon, chairman of the Senate Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, decided to investigate the “missing” 147 election returns in the custody of the House. This decision came after Sen. Loren Legarda complained that she was able to retrieve from the House only 53 of 200 election returns that were the subject of her election protest against then Vice President Noli “ de Castro. Since Loren was no longer a senator that time, it was then Senate Minority Leader Nene Pimentel that moved for the Senate inquiry into the “missing” election returns.

The House leadership refused to cooperate with the Senate, saying it was already conducting its own probe into the matter, and that was that.

There were other issues that pitted congressmen against senators. Many senators were peeved at repeated attempts by the House to shift to a unicameral government, which could only result in the abolition of the Senate. The Senate was particularly incensed in the last Congress when the House adopted a resolution declaring that the House, even without the Senate, could amend the Constitution. This resulted in the adoption by the Senate of a resolution lashing at the “House only” move that would make the Senate voiceless in an act as important as the Cha-cha. That marked the first time that the Senate had passed a measure roundly criticizing a move by the House.

Now, the Senate is about to ignite another round of hostilities with the House by inviting Rep. Iggy Arroyo of Negros Occidental to testify before the Senate blue-ribbon committee on the sale of used choppers to the Philippine National Police.

Actually, Sen. TG Guingona, the committee chair, would not have invited Arroyo had the congressman not claimed that it was he and not his brother Miguel Arroyo who was responsible for the lease and sale of the used choppers passed off as new. Testimonies before the panel tended to show that it was the former First Gentleman who owned the used choppers that was eventually sold to the PNP. The former FG denied ownership of the aircraft.

I support TG on this issue. If Arroyo wants to clear his elder brother of any blame, then he should go all-out and prove before the Senate his claim that he is responsible for the lease and sale of the choppers. Should he refuse to cooperate, then he is merely trying to stonewall the investigation. Everybody will believe he wants to prevent the truth from coming out.

TG’s invitation was for Congressman Arroyo to appear at his committee’s hearing on August 22. Arroyo is currently in London seeking treatment for a liver ailment and it’s doubtful if he could return in time for the Senate hearing. The way arguments are coming out now, the issue has gone beyond the search for truth. The main issue here, we are now made to believe, is whether he could ignore this and future invitations or even subpoenas on account of the traditional inter-chamber courtesy.

The limits of inter-chamber courtesy have never been resolved. There are varied opinions on this. Senate President Pro-tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano and Senators Serge Osmena and Kiko Pangilinan all believe it is but right that Arroyo should appear before the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Tito “Tito Sen” Sotto said that under this principle, there’s no way the Senate could compel Arroyo to attend a Senate hearing.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has a more cautious stand on the possible invocation of inter-chamber courtesy by Arroyo.

“I will leave it to the committee to dispose that. As president of the Senate, I will not make any pronouncement because I do not know the thinking of the committee members,” JPE said.

House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzalez II has a more pointed statement should the Senate issue a subpoena for Arroyo. In a virtual warning to the Senate, he said that any move by the Senate decide to compel Arroyo’s attendance would open the door for the House to also compel attendance of senators in appropriate cases in House inquiries.

Seeing this endless row between the two chambers, I’m now inclined to support the move to make our legislature unicameral. Maybe, this way, pugnacious lawmakers can confine themselves to infighting.


This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.