When the Senate listens:

the case of Legislative Prompts in Senate Resolutions

by Ronald Jabal

I.0 Introduction

Senator Mar Roxas succinctly pointed out the raison d’être of every single elected government

officials during a recent hearing of the Legacy-affiliated banks fiasco: that Senators and

Congressmen are elected to represent the voice of their constituents. He stressed that the

reason why he along with other Senators are there in the Senate because they represent the

“voice of Aling Grace (of the victims of Legacy-affiliated banks) and vowed to continue

representing these “voices” for as long as they are in the Senate.

One may call it grandstanding “in aid of election” but there is a modicum of truth in Senator

Roxas’ statements. Indeed, Senators and Congressmen are called “representatives” because

they represent the “voices” of those who elected them into their respective offices. But when

does “representation” stop or does it ever stop?

This question has hogged political philosophies for ages. One of the oldest and most debated

issues about democracy concerns the proper relationship between representatives and their

constituents.

And this paper participates in this debate. Do Senators really listen to their constituents? Do

voters’ concerns/issues matter to them in between elections? Is the public agenda part of

theirs? Are there other agenda in the Senate’s agenda?

These are just some of the questions that have been talked about for many years and there

seems to be endless debates on the responses – sometimes even bordering on polemics and

ad hominems.

John Lilburne and Jean Jacques Rousseau (Vogler, 1974) argued that the proper function of the

representative assembly in a true democracy is not to initiate policies on its own but only to

register the policy preferences of the popular majority it represents. This is sometimes called the

Mandate Theory.

In this view, as long as the representative assembly confines itself to registering its constituent’s

views, representation involves no significant departure from democratic principles. But when the

assembly begins to make policy on its own, in either ignorance or in defiance of its constituents’

desires, it becomes a kind of oligarchy.

But others argued it is neither possible nor desirable in modern nation. For those who espouse

“independence” theory, the representative must initiate – and not merely register policies.

For them, representatives should exercise their judgment on public affairs independently and

without surrendering the final decisions to their constituents

Hanna Pitkin (Ranney, 1993) summarizes that mandate theorists argue that government in

which representatives can do the opposite of what their constituents want is not truly

representative. On the other hand, the independence theorists stress that representatives who

never act on their own and serve merely as conduits for their constituents’ preference are not

truly representing.
Pitkin therefore recommends, compromise which is an acceptance of mixture of both theories,

with the proportion of each adjusted by each legislator according to his or her best judgment of

what is needed in particular circumstances. (Ranney,1993)

At the heart of this debate is what and how representatives represent constituents. According to

a number of political theorists (Danzinger, 1994), there are four different conceptions of

“interests” or source of interests that a legislator might attempt to represent. These are:

• The groups that is most dominant in the legislator’s constituency, possibly a social class,
religious group or ethnic group

• The political party to which the legislator owes loyalty

• The country as a while, whose broad interests might transcend those of any group or
party

• The legislators’ own conscience which provides moral and intellectual judgment about
appropriate political behavior.

2. 0 Research question

This paper attempts to answer at one question that is important on the issue of
“representativeness” of the Senate agenda. This paper addresses the question: Where do the
Senate agenda in the Senate Resolutions come from? And Senate Agenda for this paper will be
limited to the Senate Resolutions filed by the Senators in the 14th Congress.

Hypothesis:

H1: All Senate agenda in Senate Resolution comes from “voices” of the constituents (consistent
with the mandate theory)
H2: All Senate agenda in Senate Resolution comes from Senators’ initiatives (consistent with
the independence theory)

H3: All Senate agenda in the Senate Resolution comes from a combination of constituents’
interests and personal initiative of the Senators (consistent with the compromise theory)

3.0 Framework

This research paper will be grounded on basic premise of agenda-setting. This paper combines

theoretical framework from two disciplines: public policy and communications research in an

effort to present a descriptive profiling of agenda setting in Senate Resolutions. This paper will

call these “agenda-setters” i.e. those issues/personalities that become subject of the resolution

as “prompts”.

Roger W. Cobb and Charles D. Elder said there are two types of agenda: the systemic and

institutional. The systemic agenda – a discussion agenda - focuses on issues perceived by

members of the political community as important and therefore merit public attention.

Institutional/government agenda, on other hand, is composed of issues that public officials feel

obliged to give serious thoughts and active attention. Hence, Cobb and Elder’s model of agenda

setting is as follows:

Private Public Issue

Problem Problem

Institutional Systemic
Agenda Agenda
Agenda setting frameworks in communications research takes on a similar plane departing only

on some components as it gives prominence on media as an important element in the setting

process. Two of the leading proponents of agenda-setting theory are Maxwell McCombs and

Donald Shaw who, in the 1970s, asserted that mass media set the agenda for public opinion by

highlighting certain issue. Studying the way political campaigns were covered in the media,

Shaw and McCombs found the main effect of news media to be agenda-setting, telling people

not what to think, but what to think about. According to this theory, the agenda-setting function is

a three-part process:

1. Media agenda - issues discussed in the media

2. Public Agenda – issues discussed and personally relevant to the public
3. Policy Agenda – issues that policy makers consider important

McCombs (2000) said that elements prominent in the mass media’s picture of the world

influence the prominence of those elements in the audience’s picture. According to McCombs

when mass media present an object, they also tell us something about the attributes of the

object. Some attributes are emphasized. Others are mentioned only in attributes (McCombs,

2000 p. 78)

Bernard Cohen (1963) has the same sentiments when he said the press is significantly more

than a purveyor of information and opinion. He said that the press may not be successful much

of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what

to think about. “And it follows from this that the world looks different to different people,

depending not only on their personal interests, but also on the map that is drawn for them by the

writers, editors, and publishers of the papers they read” (Cohen, 1963, p. 14).

The agenda setting is communications follows this model:

Public
Agenda
 Media
coverage
Policy
Using the above mentioned frameworks (policy and communications) as a jump off points, this
Agenda
paper will look at a number of issues or “prompts” that have been considered by Senators as

important, hence meriting inclusion in the Senate Resolutions and therefore forming part of the

policy agenda of the Senate. The operational framework for this paper is as follows:

Media Senate
Systemic Interest groups Agenda
Agenda Personalities (thru SR)
(all issues) Personal Agenda

Special note:

Media – press coverage

Interest groups: both include interest of advocacy groups and individual advocates
Personalities: outstanding individuals given commendation
Personal Agenda: personal interest or analysis of issues1

4.0 Methodology

The paper covers all of the current 850 Senate Resolutions (SR) filed in the 14th Congress and

will be tabulated based on the coding sheet, developed specifically for this paper, as follows:

Coding Sheet

Coder
Date of Coding

1
Whenever there is no clear indication/citation in the resolution of the actual source of information being discussed,
the paper considers them as personal agenda
 SRN1 SRN2 SRN3 SRN4 SRN5 SRN6 SRN7
1. Senator
2. Type of SR
3. Source Info
4. If press, what
type?

Code Guide:
Variable numbers Variable Label Value Value Label
1 Senator 1 Manuel Villar
2 Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
3 Francis Pangilinan
4 Aquilino Pimentel
5 Benigno Aquino Jr.
6 Joker Arroyo
7 Loren Legarda
8 Mar Roxas
9 Juan Ponce Enrile
10 Ping Lacson
11 Alan Peter Cayetano
12 Pia Cayetano
13 Francis Escudero
14 Ramon Revilla Jr
15 Lito Lapid
16 Jamby Madrigal
17 Mirriam Santiago
18 Edgardo Angara
19 Miguel Zubiri
20 Rodolfo Biazon
21 Gregorio Honasan
22 Antonio Trillanes
23 Richard Gordon
2 Type of SR 1 Inquiry
2 Investigation
3 Commendation
4 Sense of the Senate
5 Others
3 Source of Info 1 Press
2 Interest Group/Individuals
3 Academics
4 Personalities
5 Personal Assessment/Analysis
6 Others
4 Type of Press 1 Print
2 TV
3 Radio
4 Internet
5 Others

The coder (the researcher) analyzed the Senate Resolutions by looking at the “legislative”

prompts as used by the Senators. These legislative prompts that inform and form the Senators’

agenda as can been in the Senate Resolution are the press, the interest groups/individuals,

academics, personalities, personal assessments/analysis others.

The researcher also included the variable “types of press” to find out which is the preferred

choice of the Senators, should they be prompted by the press in their agenda-setting activities,

in terms of types of press.

To determined which are the preferred choice of “legislative prompts” and the type of press used

by the Senators, the researcher made use of SPSS and conducted descriptive statistics. Cross

tabulation between the senators and the choice of the “legislative prompts” were also made to

determine which prompts are the preferred choices of the senators.

5.0 Discussion of Results

There were a total of 808 unique Senate Resolutions analyzed for this paper (see Figure 1).

This was based on a total of 850 Senate Resolutions gathered. The researched took only those

Senate Resolutions that carry a single author or proponent. This is to clearly show

“uniqueness” of the resolutions. The other 42 Senate Resolutions that were not included in the

study are those that have multiple authors.

Figure 1: Number of Senate Resolutions

Statistics

Type of
Name of Senate Source of
Senator Resolution Information Type of Press
N Valid 808 808 808 189
Missing 0 0 0 619

The top ten Senators who filed the most number of resolutions are Senator Miriam Santiago,

topped the list with 27% of the total number of resolutions filed (See Figure 2). She is followed

by Senators Manuel Villar, Loren Legarda, Lito Lapid, Jamby Madrigal, Mar Roxas, Jinggoy

Estrada, Richard Gordon, Pia Cayetano, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Gregorio Honasan.
Figure 2: Number of Senate Resolutions filed by each Senator

Name of Senator

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Mirriam Santiago 219 27.1 27.1 27.1
Manny Villar 120 14.9 14.9 42.0
Loren Legarda 64 7.9 7.9 49.9
Lito Lapid 55 6.8 6.8 56.7
Jamby Madrigal 47 5.8 5.8 62.5
Mar Roxas 39 4.8 4.8 67.3
Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada 32 4.0 4.0 71.3
Richard Gordon 31 3.8 3.8 75.1
Pia Cayetano 30 3.7 3.7 78.8
Ramon Revilla Jr 28 3.5 3.5 82.3
Gregorio Honasan 26 3.2 3.2 85.5
Rodolfo Biazon 21 2.6 2.6 88.1
Miguel Zubiri 20 2.5 2.5 90.6
Ping Lacson 14 1.7 1.7 92.3
Francis Escudero 13 1.6 1.6 93.9
Antonio Trillanes 12 1.5 1.5 95.4
Francis Pangilinan 9 1.1 1.1 96.5
Edgardo Angara 9 1.1 1.1 97.6
Aquilino Pimentel 5 .6 .6 98.3
Benigno Aquino Jr. 5 .6 .6 98.9
Juan Ponce Enrile 5 .6 .6 99.5
Joker Arroyo 3 .4 .4 99.9
Alan Peter Cayetano 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 808 100.0 100.0

Close to 64% of the Senate Resolutions filed in the 14th Congress in the Senate are inquiries in

aid of legislation (See Figure 3). Surprisingly, two out of five or 19.4% of the resolutions are

meant to commend individuals and institutions that have excelled or were given awards here

and abroad. It is followed by calls for investigation in aid of legislation and by the expression of

the “Sense of the Senate” which mostly expresses the stand/position of Senators on a number

of issues.
Figure 3: Types of Resolutions filed by Senators

Type of Senate Resolution

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Inquiry 515 63.7 63.7 63.7
Commendation 157 19.4 19.4 83.2
Investigation 61 7.5 7.5 90.7
Sense of the Senate 56 6.9 6.9 97.6
Others 19 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 808 100.0 100.0

Central to this study, is the source of information – the legislative prompts - of the Senate

Resolutions. Of the 808, Senate Resolutions considered 41% came from Senators’ personal

assessment and analysis (See Figure 4). In these Resolutions, the Senators took time to

analyze and gather information that leads them to call for either an inquiry or an investigation.

There is no clear indication of other sources of information or “legislative” prompts” that can be

seen in these resolutions.

Close to 24% of the Senate Resolutions are based from press reportage. These resolutions

directly quoted from press reports and/or culled from various news sources and media outfits.

Some 20% of the Senate Resolutions are based on personalities. Only 15% is based from

demands or statements from interest groups and individuals.

Of the Senate Resolutions that used the press as basis, there is an apparent preference for

Print (mostly coming from the Philippine Daily Inquirer) Close to 91% of the Senate Resolutions

that used Press as a legislative prompts, used Print (See Figure 5) while a measly 2% is based

on Internet (web presence of major TV and print outfits). There are very negligible results from

TV and Radio.
Figure 4: The legislative prompts in Senate Resolutions

Source of Information

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Personal Assessment/
Analysis 330 40.8 40.8 40.8
Press 189 23.4 23.4 64.2
Personalities 163 20.2 20.2 84.4
Interest Groups/
Individuals 118 14.6 14.6 99.0
Academics 8 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 808 100.0 100.0

Figure 5: Types of press used as source of Senate Resolution.

Type of Press

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Print 171 21.2 90.5 90.5
Internet 13 1.6 6.9 97.4
TV 4 .5 2.1 99.5
Radio 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 189 23.4 100.0
Missing System 619 76.6
Total 808 100.0

The results of the cross-tabulation between Senators and legislative prompts show interesting

results. Senator Miriam Santiago showed preference for the Press as her “legislative prompts”.

She heavily used the press as her source of information in filing for resolutions (See Figure 6).

She beat by a thousand miles media personality Senator Loren Legarda who only used the

Press in 10 of her Senate Resolutions.

Among the Senators who relied on their personal assessment/analysis as their “legislative

prompts”, Senator Manuel Villar topped the list. The others include Senators Miriam Santiago,

Jamby Madrigal, Mar Roxas and Loren Legarda.

Interestingly, there are Senators who are “heavy praisers” i.e. those that issued the most

number of commendation resolutions. Topping the list is Senator Manny Villar. A distant second

is Senator Lito Lapid.

Figure 6: Senators and their preferred legislative prompts

Name of Senator * Source of Information Crosstabulation

Source of Information
Interest Personal
Groups/ Assessment/
Press Individuals Academics Personalities Analysis TOTAL
Name of Richard Gordon 1 2 0 12 16 31
Senator Antonio Trillanes 1 0 0 2 9 12
Gregorio Honasan 3 3 0 8 12 26
Rodolfo Biazon 2 1 1 1 16 21
Miguel Zubiri 3 3 0 8 6 20
Edgardo Angara 0 0 0 1 8 9
Mirriam Santiago 138 36 2 10 33 219
Jamby Madrigal 0 14 0 3 30 47
Lito Lapid 5 6 1 27 16 55
Ramon Revilla Jr 1 4 0 14 9 28
Francis Escudero 1 3 0 2 7 13
Pia Cayetano 2 9 2 2 15 30
Alan Peter Cayetano 0 0 0 0 1 1
Ping Lacson 2 0 0 0 12 14
Juan Ponce Enrile 1 0 0 0 4 5
Mar Roxas 7 1 0 6 25 39
Loren Legarda 10 19 2 7 26 64
Joker Arroyo 1 0 0 0 2 3
Benigno Aquino Jr. 0 0 0 1 4 5
Aquilino Pimentel 0 0 0 0 5 5
Francis Pangilinan 0 1 0 5 3 9
Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada 1 2 0 11 18 32
Manny Villar 10 14 0 43 53 120
Total 189 118 8 163 330 808

6.0 Conclusion and Implications:

Clearly, H1 and H2 are nullified and H3 is affirmed. Senators based their agenda in filing

Senate Resolutions on the combination of personal initiatives and constituents’ interests.

Senators are clearly aware that “representative” democracy does not necessarily mean just

representing the “voices” of their constituents but also asserts their personal assessments of

situations. This is consistent with a liberal democratic framework where the representative has

a particular role to play: he is responsible to his electorate but he is not its delegate; he

represents a geographical collection of opinions but is not required to surrender his own.

There is however an alarming finding. Senators’ preference on media coverage as a source of

agenda in Senate Resolutions is worthy of note. By relying on press coverage, Senators maybe

basing their resolutions on mediated reality i.e. only those considered by the press as important

are being covered.

These issues covered by the press and have been made part of Senate Resolutions as Senate

agenda may not be important in the eyes of the larger constituencies. Other issues which could

be more important may not be part of the media coverage and therefore outside the Senators

radar.

In such a case, Senators are in danger of practicing (mis)representative democracy – where

press coverage supplants the real issues of their constituents or their own personal initiatives in

formulating their agenda. With heavy reliance on press coverage, Senators may end up

representing media agenda and not public interests – a fatal blow on the much-vaunted

democracy in the country.

 References

Ball, Alan R. and B. Guy Peters (2000). Modern Politics and Government 6th ed. Macmillan
Press LTD. London England

Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder (1982). “Issue Creation and Agenda Building, in James
Anderson (ed.) Cases in Public Policy Making. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Cohen, B. (1963) The press and foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Danzinger, James N. (1998) Understanding the Political World. A Comparative Introduction to

Political Science. 4th ed. Longman New York

McCombs, Maxwell, Esteban Lopez-Escobar and Juan Pablo Llamas (2000). Setting the
Agenda of Attributes in the 1996 Spanish General Election. Journal of
Communications Vol 50 No. 2.

McCombs, Maxwell and George Estrada. The News Media and the Pictures in our
Heads. in Do the Media Governm0ent: Politics, Voters and Reporters in America.
Shanto Iyengar and Richard Reeves. eds. 1997. London: Sage Publications

Ranney, Austin (1993) Governing: an Introduction to Political Science. Prentice Hall New
Jersey

Vogler, David J. (1974). The Politics of Congress 1974. Alyn and Beacon Inc..Boston

Winter Herbet R. and Thomas J. Bellows (1986) People and Politics. An introduction to Political
Science. 3rd ed.