More on Maharlika

FIRE, Ready, Aim. I am a lapsed lawyer, but from what I remember, laws are supposed to be passed by the Congress with three readings. In more organized places, when preparing an important law, you have studies and papers prepared, discuss and vet the issues at committee. Then the committee agrees on what should be sent to the entire body to further discuss and vote on, then more of that as it gets to the second and third reading. Then it moves to the Senate, where the same happens. Then the president signs it and it becomes law, or he vetoes it and it dies unless overridden. I don't think the Constitution envisioned a process where one passes a bill first and without much vetting, then study, revise and approve something very different from what was passed in the other chamber. Unless it's an emergency or urgent. And the other chamber treats it with the same urgency and importance.

With Maharlika, the bill passed by the House seems to have little resemblance to what is emerging from the Senate. While they are also treating it as urgent, both the Senate and the president agree it should be carefully analyzed and vetted. Then why the rush last December at Congress? How do you then reconcile in conference such different bills, or will the Congress defer to what comes out of the Senate? This whole process seems to be unfolding in a haphazard way as if someone said, "Look at those sovereign wealth funds. They are good. We should have our own." Many then agreed. Without realizing it, the GSIS and SSS already play that role. Then the problem was instead of studying and preparing for it in depth and detail, then weighing how we should craft one that meets the needs and purpose, we just had a bill that did not seem fully formed to me.