Philippine Daily Inquirer is leading source of Senate Agenda

by Ronald Jabal

Senator Mar Roxas succinctly pointed out the raison d’être of every single elected government officials during a recent hearing of the Legacy-affiliated banks fiasco: that Senators and Congressmen are elected to represent the voice of their constituents.

He stressed that the reason why he along with other Senators are there in the Senate because they represent the “voice of Aling Grace (one of the victims of Legacy-affiliated banks) and vowed to continue representing these “voices” for as long as they are in the Senate.

One may call it grandstanding “in aid of election” but there is a modicum of truth in Senator Roxas’ statements. Indeed, Senators and Congressmen are called “representatives” because they represent the “voices” of those who elected them into their respective offices. But when does “representation” stop or does it ever stop?

This question has hogged political philosophies for ages. One of the oldest and most debated issues about democracy concerns the proper relationship between representatives and their constituents.

And this article participates in this debate. Do Senators really listen to their constituents? Do voters’ concerns/issues matter to them in between elections? Is the public agenda part of theirs? Are there other agenda in the Senate’s agenda?

I recently conducted a content analysis of all the Senate Resolutions (as one major source of Senate's agenda) filed in the 14th Congress, and found alarming results.

The top ten Senators who filed the most number of resolutions are Senator Miriam Santiago, topped the list with 27% of the total number of resolutions filed. She is followed by Senators Manuel Villar, Loren Legarda, Lito Lapid, Jamby Madrigal, Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, Richard Gordon, Pia Cayetano, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Gregorio Honasan.

Close to 64% of the Senate Resolutions filed in the 14th Congress in the Senate are inquiries in aid of legislation. Surprisingly, two out of five or 19.4% of the resolutions are meant to commend individuals and institutions that have excelled or were given awards here and abroad. It is followed by calls for investigation in aid of legislation and by the expression of the “Sense of the Senate” which mostly expresses the stand/position of Senators on a number of issues.


Of the 808, Senate Resolutions considered 41% came from Senators’ personal assessment and analysis .

Close to 24% of the Senate Resolutions are based from press reportage. These resolutions directly quoted from press reports and/or culled from various news sources and media outfits.
Some 20% of the Senate Resolutions are based on personalities. Only 15% is based from demands or statements from interest groups and individuals.

Of the Senate Resolutions that used the press as basis, there is an apparent preference for Print (mostly coming from the Philippine Daily Inquirer) Close to 91% of the Senate Resolutions that used Press as a legislative prompts, used Print while a measly 2% is based on Internet (web presence of major TV and print outfits). There are very negligible results from TV and Radio.

The results of the cross-tabulation between Senators and legislative prompts show interesting results. Senator Miriam Santiago showed preference for the Press as her “legislative prompts”. She heavily used the press as her source of information in filing for resolutions. She beat by a thousand miles media personality Senator Loren Legarda who only used the Press in 10 of her Senate Resolutions.

Interestingly, there are Senators who are “heavy praisers” i.e. those that issued the most number of commendation resolutions. Topping the list is Senator Manny Villar. A distant second is Senator Lito Lapid.

Looking at the forest

Senators based their agenda in filing Senate Resolutions on the combination of personal initiatives and constituents’ interests. Senators are clearly aware that “representative” democracy does not necessarily mean just representing the “voices” of their constituents but also asserts their personal assessments of situations.

This is consistent with a liberal democratic framework where the representative has a particular role to play: he is responsible to his electorate but he is not its delegate; he represents a geographical collection of opinions but is not required to surrender his own.

There is however an alarming finding. Senators’ preference on media coverage as a source of agenda in Senate Resolutions is worthy of note. By relying on press coverage, Senators maybe basing their resolutions on mediated reality i.e. only those considered by the press as important are being covered.

These issues covered by the press and have been made part of Senate Resolutions as Senate agenda may not be important in the eyes of the larger constituencies. Other issues which could be more important may not be part of the media coverage and therefore outside the Senators radar.

In such a case, Senators are in danger of practicing (mis)representative democracy – where press coverage supplants the real issues of their constituents or their own personal initiatives in formulating their agenda.

With heavy reliance on press coverage, Senators may end up representing media agenda and not public interests – a fatal blow on the much-vaunted democracy in the country.