COULD INTERPARLIAMENTARY COURTESY BE WAIVED?

COULD INTERPARLIAMENTARY COURTESY BE WAIVED?

Let us get this straight from the start: interparliamentary courtesy is a custom, not a law. It is an unwritten practice, an understanding of mutual respect between the Senate and the House of Representatives. No provision in the Constitution, no statute in our books, imposes it. Therefore, it follows logically that it can be waived—especially when the national interest is at stake.

Yet in practice, this courtesy has become a shield. A shield against accountability, against transparency, and, in some cases, against public scrutiny. When a member of one chamber is summoned to the other—say, a congressman invited to a Senate inquiry—the usual escape hatch is this courtesy card: “We cannot compel them; out of respect to co-equal bodies.” Respect is noble, but should it be weaponized against the people’s right to know?

Consider the absurdity of some cases. Certain party-list representatives, elected supposedly to amplify the voices of the marginalized, are also contractors of government infrastructure projects. So which hat do they wear when the Senate summons them: the congressman’s or the contractor’s? If they themselves created their double identities, why not be invited in the capacity that exposes the conflict? After all, contractors are not immune from legislative investigation.

Some argue: the Senate is not a court of law; resource persons are not accused, merely asked to contribute “in aid of legislation.” Precisely! If they have nothing to hide, why refuse? Why not even offer to waive the so-called immunity, if only to clarify issues? After all, other professionals—lawyers, doctors, businessmen—appear before committees without invoking special privileges.

And let us not pretend that courtesy has never been waived. History shows otherwise. There were moments when senators set aside courtesy to scrutinize controversial appointments or to investigate Cabinet officials with questionable track records. Budget deliberations in bicameral conferences also prove that collegial respect has limits, especially when billions of pesos are involved. So why should members of Congress themselves be exempt when the stakes are equally high?

In this digital age, excuses also lose weight. Too busy to attend? Appear via video conference. The pandemic normalized remote hearings—students, employees, even presidents of corporations attend online. Should elected officials be the exception? If they truly respect democracy, shouldn’t they be the first to embrace transparency, not hide behind tradition?

Of course, waiving courtesy is not without risks. It can be politically sensitive, sometimes explosive. Waiving it too easily might set off accusations of partisanship or vendetta. Critics might argue that respect among co-equals is the lubricant that allows Congress to function smoothly. But must smooth operations always trump accountability?

This brings us to a deeper question: what is parliamentary courtesy really for? Its purpose was never to grant immunity from accountability. It was to ensure civility, to prevent unnecessary bickering, and to maintain a working relationship between chambers. But when that courtesy morphs into an obstacle to truth-finding, the spirit of democracy suffers.

In other countries, legislative bodies balance courtesy with accountability. In the U.S., for instance, Congress issues subpoenas even to its own members. In the U.K., MPs can be investigated, disciplined, and compelled to respond to inquiries. These parliaments recognize that respect must coexist with responsibility. Why can’t we?

Perhaps the way forward is not abolition but codification. Why not formally define the scope of interparliamentary courtesy? Clarify when it applies, and when it must yield to higher principles such as transparency, anti-corruption, and public interest. This way, no one can abuse the ambiguity.

At the risk of sounding naïve, I believe genuine leaders should not fear being questioned. If a senator calls me to explain how my actions as a legislator intersect with public funds, and I truly acted aboveboard, why would I resist? Refusing to attend only deepens suspicion.

So, could interparliamentary courtesy be waived? The answer is yes. Should it be waived? The answer depends on whether our leaders value courtesy more than accountability. And therein lies the insult to democracy: when tradition becomes the excuse to dodge the truth.

Perhaps it is time to remind our lawmakers—courtesy is given, not demanded. And the highest courtesy they owe is not to each other, but to the Filipino people.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

01-25-2026