On certifying a bill as urgent

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Mirisi, merese, or meresi is actually a form of victim-shaming. But it is hard not to feel this way for lawmakers who felt shortchanged by the bicameral conference of Congress in regards to the 2025 appropriations bill. Note that only a few lawmakers protested when President Bongbong Marcos certified the bill as urgent. Most of them were indeed happy to railroad the legislation of the national budget for next year.

Legislators from both chambers of Congress were eager to support an unconstitutional act. Presumably because they will benefit from it. Although it is also possible that some of them may not be aware of the constitutional provision that mandates three readings on separate days and the only exception to this rule. Of course, it is not beyond dynastic politicians, which Congress is full of, to flout the constitution to keep themselves in 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.”

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. Note that the law itself is required to meet the exigencies arising from the 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.

Bear in mind that the words “calamity or emergency” must be plainly understood. The use of these words in the constitution bears no technical meaning. A calamity is commonly known as an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress. For instance, disasters like an earthquake, tsunami, 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 outage.

Lamentably, both the executive and the legislative branches of our government have colluded to use this exception for various reasons other than to address a calamity or emergency as required by our constitution. And alarmingly, the Supreme Court has continually refused to recognize any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President and Congress in this matter.

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. The Marcos administration has availed of the exception to expedite its budget legislation even if this process occurs every year. Note that there is nothing sudden or unexpected in this exercise that would justify dispensing with the “three readings on separate days” rule.

It is utterly wrong to think that this is a constitutional practice. The domination of political dynasties of politics and governance has severely undermined the separation of powers and has allowed lawmakers to violate the 1987 Constitution with impunity. Even more so with the President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives being first cousins.

Ironically, the dubious insertions forced the administration to postpone the signing of the budget bill. Even the blood ties between two top officials of the land could not overcome the public uproar. President Marcos wanted more time to study how the irregularities in the bill can be remedied. Essentially undercutting the rationale for his certification of the bill as urgent.