How can you be lawmakers if you don't know the law?

Is it undemocratic to require that all lawmakers should at least be knowledgeable of law and lawmaking? The way a comedy of errors is unfolding in the current impeachment proceedings, the argument that legislators should have adequate knowledge of the law has gained renewed impetus. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Is it too much to ask if we amend the Constitution and require that at least 13 out of the 24 senators be members of the Bar? Or, at the very least, a candidate for congressman or senator should have graduated from the four-year Pre-Law and another four-year Law Proper. In the same manner that we do not allow a non-doctor to practice medicine and a non-CPA should not practice accounting officially, we should not allow non-lawyers to pretend to be qualified in the difficult and intricate art and science of legislation.

Even in the municipal councils and provincial boards, there should be enough lawyers to make sure that local ordinances and resolutions should not contravene the constitution and existing national laws. For instance, in a municipality, out of the eight councilors, at least four should be lawyers or, in the absence thereof, at least a law graduate and in the absence thereof, a law student who has completed a four-year pre-law course. In the provincial board, since every district is represented by two board members, at least one should be a member of the bar.

In the Philippine Senate, there should be at least 13, out of the 24 senators who should be members of the Bar. The same should be true to the House of Representatives. All House and Senate standing committees should be chaired by a member of the Bar, or at least, co-chaired by a lawyer. We cannot improve the quality of legislation, and the quality of senate investigations, as well as impeachments, if the Chamber is dominated by actors, comedians, retired boxers and basketball players. If these people want to become lawmakers, they should first study law.

The Civil Service Rules require civil service eligibility to join public service or to become civil servants. Why cannot we amend the Constitution to impose higher requirements to those who aspire for higher positions? Knowing how to read and write is not enough for one to be glorified as honorable members of the House or the Senate. They must pass qualifying credentials and examinations. If we require a driver to prove his proficiency, mastery and excellence in driving, why do we not demand higher qualifications for members of Congress?

Aspiring senators should master the different provisions of the Constitution. They must be familiar with legal terms including, but not limited to, the word "forthwith." Aspiring senators should learn the Parliamentary Rules of Procedures so that as senator-judges, they should not act as de facto lawyers for the respondents impeached officials by filing an incongruous motion to dismiss. How can a judge move to dismiss a case which he himself is mandated to hear and decide.

Legislators, both in the House and in the Senate should learn the nuances and intricacies of legislative investigations in aid of legislation. They should not abuse their powers to declare resource persons and guests in contempt. Senators and congressmen should not behave as if they are investigating prosecutors or justices and judges by peremptorily ordering the detention of witnesses even if these poor people are sickly, ageing or informed. Legislators should not deprive witnesses of their liberty without due process of law.

Legislators, especially if they are not lawyers, should not be quick and reckless in putting any resource person in detention whenever these people give answers that the legislative investigators would not like. The poor witnesses have work and families to attend to. Most of them were just invited to shed light on certain issues, and they ended up being detained. I am sure that if these legislators are lawyers, they would exercise restraint in the use of their contempt powers.

The current impeachment proceedings are turning out to become a comedy of errors. The lawyers in both chambers are outnumbered and overpowered by others who do not have grounding on the fundamental legal principles. Thus, it is showing a number of instances when legislative and investigative powers are exceeding the bounds of propriety and legality. Motions are made and the chairs at many times do not know how to rule on them.

Of course, lawyers are not infallible and they too can commit mistakes in law and mistakes in facts. But if the majority of the senators and the congressmen are members of the Bar, there shall be more than peremptory discussions on the intricacies and nuances of performing legislative functions. The quality of law-making and the quality of the laws themselves will most probably improve.

The Senate and the House used to be the chambers of such legal titans as Claro M. Recto, Jose W. Diokno, Lorenzo Tanada, Mariano Jesus Cuenco, Sergio Osmeña Sr, Manuel L. Quezon, Manuel A. Roxas, Quintin Paredes, Lorenzo Tanada, Arturo Tolentino, Jovito Salonga, Ambrocio Padilla, Raul Manglapus, Francisco Rodrigo, Jose P. Laurel and many other famous lawyers like Raul Roco, Ed Angara, Neptali Gonzales and Ramon Mitra, Nene Pimentel and Frank Drilon.

These legal luminaries cannot be replaced by comedians, jesters and ageing boxers and basketball players. Law-making should be in the hands of lawyers, as medicines are in the exclusive hands of doctors. It is as plain and simple as that.