*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
I was not supposed to write this blog now, but as I watched the Blue-Ribbon Committee hearing this month, I could not resist putting my thoughts into words. The session was meant to be a straightforward inquiry into issues of public accountability. Yet what unfolded was a spectacle of interruptions—questions and statements that, to my mind as an academician and doctrine development professor, were clearly out of order. What stood out most was the repeated raising of judicial questions, not to clarify legislative matters, but to derail and delay the proceedings. It was a textbook case of filibustering, and it reminded me once again how fragile parliamentary order becomes when rules are twisted for political ends.
In every democracy, time is one of the most precious resources in governance. Sessions and committee hearings are supposed to be moments when lawmakers address urgent matters—whether it’s passing a budget, investigating corruption, or crafting policies that touch the lives of ordinary Filipinos. But too often, instead of progress, we witness obstruction. And in recent years, a certain senator has stood out for this method.
This self-proclaim law genius senator has developed a reputation for constantly raising judicial questions during hearings—queries about constitutionality and legality that only the courts have the authority to resolve. At first glance, it sounds noble, even vigilant. But in reality, these interventions function as filibusters. They delay the proceedings, derail the discussion, and sap the energy of legislative work.
A Senate hearing is not a courtroom. The Constitution itself
says the Senate may conduct inquiries “in aid of legislation.” That means
hearings are meant to gather facts, clarify policies, and hold officials
accountable—not to rule on constitutionality. When a senator insists on turning
these forums into pseudo-judicial debates, valuable time is wasted—time that
should be spent on crafting solutions for the people.
For the public watching from outside, this is deeply frustrating. Citizens expect debates on pressing issues like education, flood control, healthcare, and corruption. Instead, they see endless arguments about matters that cannot even be decided inside the Senate. The irony is hard to miss: the more lawmakers talk about constitutionality in hearings, the less they do to actually address the constitutional promise of serving the people.
So, let us answer the question directly: Is raising a judicial question in a Senate hearing and session considered out of order? The answer is yes. It is out of order not only procedurally but also morally—because it betrays the spirit of legislative responsibility. Judicial questions belong to the courts. Legislative questions belong to the Senate. Blurring that line does not strengthen democracy; it weakens it.
If we want a Senate that works, we must guard against filibustering disguised as vigilance. Senators should stop wasting time on judicial diversions and focus instead on the task they were elected to do: make laws, conduct oversight, and serve the Filipino people.
_____________
