Part-time Legislature defeated

The part-time Legislature initiative failed to pass the House of Representatives after failing to garner the necessary two-thirds majority vote in yesterday’s session.

The initiative, authored by Rep. Clyde Norita, received nine “yes” votes coming mostly from the House leadership and eight “no” votes from the minority bloc and leadership member Rep. Janet Maratita.

To pass the House, House Legislative Initiative 14-8 needed at least 12 affirmative votes.

Those who did not support the initiative included Reps. Maratita, David Apatang, Jesus Attao, Joseph Deleon Guerrero, Heinz S. Hofschneider, Arnold I. Palacios, Benjamin B. Seman, and Ramon Tebuteb.

Those who supported the measure were Reps. Martin Ada, Oscar M. Babauta, Jesus Lizama, Norita, Crispin Ogo, Norman S. Palacios, Timothy Villagomez, and House Speaker Benigno R. Fitial.

Norita, in an interview, said he was greatly disappointed at the minority’s “stubbornness.”

“I’m disappointed with the minority bloc on their stubbornness to see the validity and the true and sincere public service that the initiative would make of the Legislature. I’ve crossed the line to work with members of the minority on concerns that they have brought up, which have all been answered. I’m disappointed with their grandstanding against the passage [of the measure] without a valid reason,” said Norita.

He said, though, that he would introduce the same measure again within the year.

“I will do it. I’ll introduce it again. It’s a good initiative and I think that the people of the Commonwealth have to make the decision,” said Norita.

Members of the minority bloc said earlier that the proposal is “flawed” and unnecessary as it is primarily about cutting costs only.

Minority leader Arnold I. Palacios cited that the measure does not even address the part-time issue. He said the initiative does not say how much time lawmakers should spend in the Legislature.

“It doesn’t tell you how many sessions or meetings to conduct. So what’s part-time for them?” asked Palacios.

Norita said the initiative does not intend to change the constitutional mandate, which is a maximum of 90 sessions a year.

“With the present setup, we’ve never hit 90. We only do an average of 40 sessions a year,” said Norita.

He said the measure does not intend “part-time” work in the Legislature. In essence, he said, part-time still means a “full-time” Legislature when it comes to work rendered.

“Whatever they call it, part-time is still a full Legislature. It means that we only get paid when we show up at the session. You know, my job as congressman is 24 hours but I’m not getting paid because I show up at somebody’s rosary or at some place. That’s not the reason why I show up. I show up because it’s family and friends. But if people are going to argue and reason that their job is 24 hours…if a constituent calls me at 3am because there’s no water at their house, the first thing I’m going to do is call CUC. Now, you don’t have to pay me for that,” said Norita.

Palacios said in a previous interview that there is no such thing as part-time lawmaker. “As a lawmaker, I’m on call anytime. Service can’t be done ‘part-time.’ So the question is, is it a political issue or a constitutional issue?”

Norita’s proposal aims to remove the legislators’ fixed salary of $39,000 each and cut their operations funds from $155,000 to $75,000.

The initiative aims to pay lawmakers based on their attendance in sessions and committee meetings.

On the issue of reduced ability to perform committee work with a reduced budget, Norita said the committee has its own funds to use.

“We don’t use our own budget for committee work. If we need to hire experts, it’s the Legislative Bureau that takes care of that,” said Norita.

He noted that the initiative does not touch the bureau’s $2 million annual funds.

Palacios and Rep. Joseph Deleon Guerrero earlier said that stripping committees of needed funds will restrict it from performing efficiently.

“We’d be walking in denial all our life if we say we can operate without these funds,” said Palacios.

Deleon Guerrero also reasoned that operations funds do end up with the community, citing that a large part of lawmakers’ budgets go to various community projects.

This, according to Norita, only highlights the need for the Legislature to be restructured. “We’re only duplicating other agencies’ work. We are here to legislate, not to do the community work that is assigned to the municipal mayor’s office or the Department of Public Works,” he said.

On the suggestion that lawmakers can voluntarily cut their budget without having to amend the Constitution, Norita said this would not resolve the financial problem.

“We all know that the government is in serious financial problem. Doing it individually won’t resolve the problem. It must be in the law,” he said.

Norita said that if passed, the initiative would translate to a $2.4 million savings for the government.