November 14, 2025 | 12:00am
Here we are in the middle of the tragic aftermath of two killer typhoons devastating our countryside and what is the Senate interested in? Changing its leadership.
Senate President Tito Sotto admitted that he has heard reports that some of his colleagues are plotting to replace him with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. That is not surprising because Sen. Alan Peter had always been an egotistical power-hungry politician.
Indeed, Sen. Alan Peter and Sen. Chiz Escudero are about the worst of current national politicians. With their education, they are expected to know better compared to Senators Bato and Robin. They are dreadfully ambitious and have no national interest.
Both want to be president and that’s the trajectory of their never-ending quest to gain political leverage. Escudero even threw out Sen. Grace Poe, Senate finance committee chair, from the “small” bicameral conference committee.
The public is starting to wonder if we still need a Senate. A recent survey by OCTA Research showed the Senate’s trust rating fell from 57 percent to 49 percent; performance rating dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent. My gut feel tells me the drop should be even more.
Gone is the Senate of old, the one I covered as a young reporter. We had learned statesmen who no doubt had national interest at heart. We learn a lot just listening to their debates. They provided the national perspective to legislation to balance the parochial view of the congressmen.
They were ambitious too. We had a joke among the Senate reporters that described the Senate as being composed of 23 people who think they should be President and one who thought he should be the Pope, with reference to Kit Tatad.
The Senate was also a good check on the President. The senators were fiercely independent and had enough national prestige to call out the President on vital issues. They were able to sway policy directions when Malacañang seemed to be on the wrong path.
Today, we have a Senate that has increasingly become a rubber-stamp of Malacañang. Today’s senators are too focused on getting their pork funds to dare offend Malacañang.
Most of the senators lost their balls and failed to support their own Blue Ribbon Committee’s findings of massive corruption in the Pharmally case. They were too afraid of Duterte to do the right thing.
If the Senate cannot or will not stand as a check on executive power, its institutional purpose is undermined. It becomes useless. It might as well be abolished.
We also have a Senate that is not willing to perform its constitutional function. It had a leadership surprisingly illiterate enough not to understand that the meaning of “forthwith” in the Constitution is right away… it must convene as an impeachment court right away.
Abdicating its constitutional responsibility to act as an impeachment court is a serious indication of how it has become too politicized, too focused on narrow partisan interests. It has become an Old Boys Club, protecting each other when they get their fingers caught trying to raid the Treasury.
In terms of performance, the Senate now seems like sheer legislative redundancy that only complicates the lawmaking process and makes it more inefficient. The Senate just adds to delays but contributes little to making better laws.
Many significant bills originate in the House but are often delayed or shelved in the Senate, resulting in wasted legislative effort and public resources. A good example is the Konektadong Pinoy law. It had been passed by the House three times and shelved by the Senate two times because one senator didn’t like it.
Another good example is the Revised Public Service Act. According to a legislative-review paper, the House version was received by the Senate on Dec. 14, 2022 and remained pending in Senate committees until mid-2024 before moving ahead.
We, taxpayers, are spending good money on Congress and we demand performance. A legislature’s relevance depends on its capacity to perform its function efficiently. If it is slow, redundant, or disconnected from practical outcomes, what is its value?
The Senate also seems unsure what its proper role is. Is it to craft legislation? Conduct headline-hugging investigations? Or even perform some executive functions like distributing ayuda? Unlike in the past, today’s Senate does not have a clear institutional identity.
Without a clear institutional role, the Senate has become less relevant because citizens, media and government officials themselves cannot see what unique value it offers.
In sum, the Philippine Senate’s relevance has declined due to loss of public trust, perceptions of subservience to Malacañang, legislative inefficiencies, diluted oversight capacity, questionable composition and institutional role ambiguity.
How much is the Senate costing us?
There are no published reports on how much budget was allocated for Senate operations. A reasonable ball-park figure for the annual cost (just from operating budget) is between P7 billion and P10 billion per year.
Then there is the new Senate building (in Taguig) estimated at P31.6 billion (or up to P33 billion including land/furnishings) that must be amortized annually.
Not to forget the pork funds each senator enjoys. Under the now-abolished Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scheme: each senator was allotted P200 million per year. Under that scheme, over a full six-year Senate term that was expected to be P1.2 billion per senator. Parang nanalo silang lahat ng lotto!
Sen Panfilo “Ping” Lacson claimed that some senators received P5 billion to P10 billion each in allocations via insertions in 2025. In another figure: he also said that between all senators at least P100 billion in individual insertions were flagged in the Senate alone in 2025.
The Senate is obviously costing taxpayers more than it is worth. Abolishing the Senate should save us its operating costs plus pork as well the opportunity cost in delayed legislation.
It’s a no-brainer to abolish it!
Boo Chanco’s email address is [email protected]. Follow him on X @boochanco