Opinion: On the Perils of Certifying a Bill as Urgent

Lawmakers, including self-avowed reform champions, insist on demanding President Bongbong Marcos to certify bills as urgent in order to expedite the legislative process. Many civil society leaders actually think that certifying a bill as urgent is good practice. They fail to realize that doing this is essentially asking President Marcos to abuse his power. 

To remind the public and our lawmakers, as per Article VI, Section 26 (2):

“No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency," according to the 1987 Constitution.

ALSO READ:

Opinion: Political Dynasties are the Noose Around our Collective Necks

Why the DND is Blaming 'Foreign Actors' for Alleged Plans to Overthrow Marcos Administration

Every bill must be read three times on separate days. This requirement aims to ensure that lawmakers have thoroughly studied and deliberated every piece of legislation that comes out of Congress. Indeed, the job of lawmaking is a problem-solving vocation. Such is the standard of work to be expected from members of the legislature. 

The exception to this rule is when there is an urgent need to enact a law to address a public calamity or emergency. Obviously, not every quick response to the latter would require legislation. But police power measures and funding provisions to address the crises will still need statutory imprimatur. A swifter method is allowed for this contingency.  

According to the Supreme Court in the much-celebrated decision, Pimentel III vs. House of Representatives, “a presidential certification for immediate enactment of a bill dispenses not only with the requirement of reading on three separate days but also the requirement of printing and distribution of printed copies in advance.”

Bear in mind, however, that the words “calamity or emergency” must be plainly understood. A calamity is commonly known as an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress. For instance, disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, or super-typhoons. 

Whereas an emergency is a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. Examples would be a localized armed attack, a nationwide bank failure, or a massive power outage.

The Supreme Court clarifies, though, that, “The timing of the public calamity or emergency does not have to be a present occurrence or a clear and present likelihood of occurrence. A mere possibility of it happening in the future is enough to certify a bill as urgent.”

Pertinently, according to Justice Marvic Leonen in his Separate Opinion in Pimentel III vs. House of Representatives, “Public calamity or emergency contemplates an event, whether natural or human-made, which is unforeseeable. It is an event that cannot be reasonably predicted or anticipated. The passage of the General Appropriations Act is not unforeseeable as it is done every year by Congress. It is a piece of legislation that is expected from Congress annually.”

More importantly, Justice Leonen asserts that, “The presidential certification of urgency should always be properly supported with the specific emergency or public calamity it aims to address, as well as the reason such emergency or public calamity requires the immediate enactment of a bill.” 

Clearly, the power of the president to certify a bill as urgent cannot be applied as if it was a normal component of the legislative process. It removes time from the lawmaking assembly-line devoted to reflection and deliberation. Therefore, it is a presidential power that must only be exercised under the direst of circumstances as prescribed by the 1987 Constitution. 

Lamentably, both the executive and the legislative branches of government have colluded to use this exception for various reasons other than to address a calamity or emergency. Laws that were passed under this unconstitutional process include the Bangsamoro Organic Law, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, and Maharlika Investment Fund Act of 2023.  

Nevertheless, it is still utterly wrong to think that this is a constitutional practice. Consequently, the call to certify as urgent the bills on increasing minimum wage, creating a new anti-corruption body, and regulating political dynasties should be reconsidered. All bills, including those that bear the utmost urgency, must still be studied and analyzed thoroughly in order to ensure their effective implementation.  

It cannot be emphasized enough that lawmaking is fundamentally a problem-solving exercise. In his seminal book, Making Laws That Work: How Laws Fail and How We Can Do Better, the eminent jurist David Goddard wrote: “The first step in designing legislation that works is to identify and describe the relevant social problem, and the desired social change.”

The public expects lawmakers to do their due diligence in devising ways to address the concerns of the nation. A mere desktop approach to the crafting of a bill will not suffice.  Lawmaking requires a combination of theoretical research and case study analysis. The work entails gathering information from a wide range of sources and using all available tools to analyze that information.

Additionally, the success of any proposed legislative measure often hinges not just on its technical merit or legal soundness, but also on the ability of its proponents to build a broad and resilient constituency. Indeed, the real measure of success for lawmaking is the ability to galvanize community validation behind a legislative proposal because this will guarantee public compliance. 

People will obey laws that they fully understand and will likely disregard those that they do not. And laws that are essentially railroaded by legislators usually only benefit the wealthy and powerful class. For these reasons, the option to certify a bill as urgent should not be used lightly and indiscriminately. 

Lastly, the fact is the systemic changes advanced by reform champions can only be achieved through legislation. Thus, the Chief Executive should have nothing to do with this effort because it falls within the exclusive domain of the legislative branch. 

Simply put, lawmakers are solely responsible for getting these necessary reforms done. Asking President Marcos to take the lead just affirms the subservience of Congress to him. And this is precisely the pathological dependency that enables the pork barrel cartel to wreak havoc in our politics and governance.

READ MORE:

Opinion: The SC Decision on VP Sara Duterte is a Cause for Alarm