The Senate in circles

I have mentioned in the past two columns that I was in Australia and, to my shock, many Australians are well aware of what is happening in the Philippines. One particular development that piqued their interest was the turn of events at our Senate. A quick visit to their Parliament House led members of the media there to ask us multiple questions about what was really happening in this legislative body. I felt my face flush with embarrassment. Here was my own country becoming the talk of the town for the wrong reasons.

Last week, an iconic walkout once again defined the rules of the Senate. Members of the minority were dismayed by how some senators moved to alter internal procedures to accommodate an online colleague --one who is seemingly in hiding due to a pending warrant of arrest. His sudden resurfacing came at the most curious of moments. Not long ago, it took what became a nationally-televised spectacle involving a supposed shooting scare to facilitate his dramatic escape before dawn. Today, we are hearing that another senator is facing plunder complaints over his alleged involvement in the multibillion-peso flood-control controversy.

For many Filipinos, these developments have become just another day in the news cycle. For outsiders looking in, however, they appear baffling. I recently spoke with a group of students who admitted that they no longer follow Senate proceedings as closely as they once did. Their reason was simple: they could no longer distinguish where governance ended and political theater began. They felt that hearings, privilege speeches, and public confrontations increasingly resembled episodes of a reality show rather than exercises in legislation and oversight.

That observation struck me because the Senate occupies a unique place in our democracy. It is supposed to be the chamber of national leaders, a body designed to deliberate on issues that affect the entire country. The senators we elect are not merely representatives of districts or provinces. They are entrusted with a national mandate and, with it, the responsibility to elevate public discourse. Instead, we seem trapped in a cycle. One controversy replaces another. One spectacle overshadows the next. The headlines become dominated by personalities rather than policies. Lost in the noise are discussions on important issues.

Perhaps this is why the Senate increasingly feels as though it is moving in circles. Every week presents a new drama, yet little seems to change. Public outrage flares, social media erupts, and political camps exchange accusations. Then another controversy arrives, and the nation repeats the process all over again.

The institution itself is bigger than any individual senator. It should command respect not because of the personalities occupying its seats but because of the role it plays in safeguarding democratic accountability. When the public begins to view the Senate primarily as a stage for political performances, the institution suffers. More importantly, public trust suffers with it. The Senate should be setting the national agenda and shaping the country's future. Instead, it often appears consumed by its own orbit.