The call to abolish Congress and the Senate has long existed at the fringes of Philippine political discourse, but recent scandals involving pork barrel abuses, corruption allegations, political dynasties, absentee lawmakers, and legislative grandstanding have given the idea renewed attention. Many Filipinos have grown weary of seeing elected officials draw enormous salaries and privileges while basic public services remain inadequate. To some sectors, the country’s legislative chambers have become symbols of waste, privilege, and corruption rather than engines of national progress.
Those who advocate abolition point to the enormous cost of maintaining the legislature. Every year, billions of pesos are spent on salaries, offices, staff, travel, consultants, hearings, and various legislative operations. Critics argue that despite these expenditures, many laws passed do little to address poverty, unemployment, inflation, poor healthcare, and weak public education. They contend that taxpayers are funding an institution that often appears more interested in political maneuvering than in solving the nation’s pressing problems.
Another argument raised by abolitionists concerns the prevalence of political dynasties and entrenched interests. Congress and the Senate are frequently dominated by wealthy families whose members occupy public offices across generations. Critics claim that this concentration of political power limits genuine representation and allows a small elite to shape legislation according to their own interests. In their view, abolishing the current legislative structure could create opportunities to design a more efficient and representative system of governance.
Some reform advocates also point to examples of countries that operate with a single legislative chamber or have significantly streamlined their lawmaking processes. They argue that the bicameral system can result in duplication, delays, and unnecessary conflicts between the House of Representatives and the Senate. A leaner structure, they suggest, could reduce government expenses and speed up decision-making while still providing democratic representation.
Yet the proposal to abolish Congress and the Senate carries serious risks. In every democratic system, legislatures serve as a check on executive power. They scrutinize budgets, investigate government activities, debate national policies, and prevent excessive concentration of authority in one branch of government. Removing these institutions without establishing equally strong safeguards could weaken democratic accountability and open the door to authoritarian rule.
Moreover, corruption is not unique to Congress and the Senate. Corruption can also exist in executive agencies, local governments, state corporations, and even the judiciary. Eliminating the legislature does not automatically eliminate the individuals, networks, and practices that enable corruption. The problem may simply migrate to other institutions. Structural reform, therefore, must address the roots of corruption rather than merely the venues where it occurs.
There is also the practical question of who would perform the legislative functions currently assigned to Congress and the Senate. Laws governing taxation, national security, education, healthcare, labor, and public spending require deliberation, amendment, and approval. If lawmakers are removed entirely, another institution would inevitably assume these responsibilities. The danger is that the replacement body could become even less transparent and less accountable than the existing system.
Perhaps the real issue is not whether Congress and the Senate should exist, but whether they should finally be transformed into institutions worthy of public trust. The widespread frustration fueling abolitionist calls is understandable and rooted in legitimate grievances. However, the challenge may lie not in destroying democratic institutions altogether but in reforming them through stronger anti-corruption measures, electoral reforms, transparency requirements, stricter qualifications for candidates, and greater public accountability.
Democracies do not become stronger by removing checks and balances; they become stronger when citizens demand that those entrusted with power perform their duties honestly and faithfully.
