The continuing saga at the Senate, why not just abolish it?

The continuing drama at the Senate goes on. But wait.

Just as I wrapped up a board meeting on Zoom this evening, I came across social media reports that Senator Sherwin Gatchalian had been elected Senate President Pro Tempore and was presiding over a newly formed majority bloc. Then I saw another post celebrating Bicolano Senator “Chiz” Escudero as a hero for showing up and helping establish a quorum, allowing the Senate to resume business.

What exactly happened? For days, the Senate had been immobilized by the absence of several senators belonging to the majority bloc. Many described it as a boycott of their constitutional duty to attend sessions and conduct the people's business. Without a quorum, the chamber could not function.Then the political landscape suddenly shifted. A quorum was finally established after one member of the majority bloc reportedly attended the session. That single appearance changed the arithmetic and allowed an opposing faction to proceed with Senate business.

What followed was dramatic and swift. Senators challenging the existing leadership moved to reorganize the chamber. Gatchalian was elected Senate President Pro Tempore, and the reorganized majority asserted that he could exercise powers necessary to keep the Senate functioning. Committee chairmanships were declared vacant, and elections were immediately conducted to fill key positions.

There came amendments to the Senate's impeachment rules. The chamber approved changes that would allow the election of a presiding officer in impeachment proceedings that do not involve the President. The timing is significant given the anticipated impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte.

Contrary to some social media claims, Senate seats themselves were not declared vacant. The dispute centered on leadership positions and the ability of the institution to function. Malacañang was quick to signal its recognition of the actions taken by the reorganized majority. Is the session legal? That question is already being hotly debated. Senators aligned with the former majority have questioned the legality of the proceedings and may ultimately challenge the actions taken. Constitutional lawyers will undoubtedly have much to say in the coming days.

But frankly, that is the least of my concern. What matters first is that the Senate is functioning again. A legislature that cannot convene cannot legislate. A Senate trapped in procedural paralysis cannot serve the public interest. Whatever one's political loyalties, government institutions must remain capable of carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.

Yet the events of today raise a larger and more important question: Do we still need a Senate?

The idea is not new. Over the years, several political reform advocates have proposed abolishing the Senate. Remember, even the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago argued in 2006 that the country could function more efficiently with a unicameral legislature. Her argument was simple: the Senate often duplicates the work of the House of Representatives while costing taxpayers billions of pesos.

The Senate itself is not a permanent fixture of Philippine governance. During the martial law period, it was abolished under the 1973 Constitution and replaced by a unicameral National Assembly. It was restored only after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution after the People Power Revolution.

Supporters of the Senate argue that it serves as a check on the House of Representatives and provides a national perspective in lawmaking. Yet the recurring political rivalries, leadership struggles, legislative delays, and institutional drama we have witnessed in recent weeks suggest that the Senate often functions more as a political stage than a chamber of mature deliberation.

What is being closely watched now is how the Senate will handle the anticipated impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte and whether it will continue investigations into controversial flood-control projects and other matters of public concern. The public watches with bated breath, waiting to see whether the upper chamber will prioritize national interest over political maneuvering.

The real issue is not simply who occupies the chair or who controls the committees. The real issue is whether our institutions can continue to function amid deep political divisions. If they cannot, then calls to reform—or even abolish—the Senate—will only grow louder.

Long before colonial powers introduced Western-style legislatures, Filipinos governed themselves through consultation and consensus-building within the barangay. Authority rested not merely on position but on trust, dialogue, and shared responsibility. Perhaps governance is just a matter of design rather than tradition. Institutions exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

If senators continue to quarrel, boycott sessions, and argue endlessly over leadership while urgent national problems remain unresolved, citizens will inevitably begin asking a simple question: If the Senate can no longer perform its purpose effectively, do we still need it at all?