Philippine Senate Defines Agenda Through Media Prompts

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 Problem

Public Problem

Institutional Agenda

Issue

Systemic 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:

Systemic Agenda (all issues)

Media Interest groups Personalities Personal Agenda

Senate Agenda (thru SR)

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 1. 2. 3. 4.

SRN2

SRN3

SRN4

SRN5

SRN6

SRN7

Senator Type of SR Source Info If press, what type?

Code Guide: Variable numbers 1

Variable Label Senator

2

Type of SR

3

Source of Info

4

Type of Press

Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5

Value Label Manuel Villar Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada Francis Pangilinan Aquilino Pimentel Benigno Aquino Jr. Joker Arroyo Loren Legarda Mar Roxas Juan Ponce Enrile Ping Lacson Alan Peter Cayetano Pia Cayetano Francis Escudero Ramon Revilla Jr Lito Lapid Jamby Madrigal Mirriam Santiago Edgardo Angara Miguel Zubiri Rodolfo Biazon Gregorio Honasan Antonio Trillanes Richard Gordon Inquiry Investigation Commendation Sense of the Senate Others Press Interest Group/Individuals Academics Personalities Personal Assessment/Analysis Others Print TV Radio Internet 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

N

Valid Missing

Name of Senator 808 0

Type of Senate Resolution 808 0

Source of Information 808 0

Type of Press 189 619

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

Valid

Frequency 219 120

Percent 27.1 14.9

Valid Percent 27.1 14.9

Cumulative Percent 27.1 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

808

100.0

100.0

Mirriam Santiago Manny Villar

Total

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

Valid

Frequency 515 157

Percent 63.7 19.4

Valid Percent 63.7 19.4

Cumulative Percent 63.7 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

808

100.0

100.0

Inquiry Commendation

Total

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

Frequency Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

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

8

1.0

1.0

100.0

808

100.0

100.0

Academics Total

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

Valid

Missing Total

Cumulative Percent 90.5 97.4

Frequency 171 13

Percent 21.2 1.6

Valid Percent 90.5 6.9

TV

4

.5

2.1

99.5

Radio

1

.1

.5

100.0

Total

189

23.4

100.0

System

619

76.6

808

100.0

Print Internet

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

Richard Gordon Antonio Trillanes

1 1

Interest Groups/ Individuals 2 0

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

Press Name of Senator

Mirriam Santiago

Academics 0 0

Personalities 12 2

Personal Assessment/ Analysis 16 9

TOTAL 31 12

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 Manny Villar Total

1

2

0

11

18

32

10

14

0

43

53

120

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.