I want to share my views, insights, and reflections on 2 glorious days and nights this Saturday and Sunday at the Philippine Model Congress 2014. Many thanks to the people responsible for organizing this event (you know who you are, just tap yourself on the back). Never have I been exposed to such a variety of people from all over the Philippines coming together to share ideas to help the development of this country through legislative simulation. This is truly an experience that I will remember for the rest of my life (or at least until Im old enough and suffering from dementia). It all started with the acceptance to participate at PMC. We were then given around two weeks to propose a bill to be debated and hopefully passed to the congress (only for those who want, not all proposed a bill and was not required). Initially, my bill was about a simple 0% taxation of the agricultural firms and the partial ownership of the government through stocks, which I then discovered to lack proper substance, reason, and importance to name a few of its problems. Further revisions and consultations with friends helped me build the bill I submitted to the Executive Committee (is that term right?). Credits to friends who helped: Jeren Panisigan (co-author) - for proofreading the applicability of the theories of the bill to real life (without you, I could never confirm if the theory meets reality) Jericho Salazar - for suggesting revisions on the constitutionality and definition of terms (section 2) and to shorten the preamble (Explanatory Note) (without you, I have no other legal advisor for the bill) Mazen Marie - for suggesting revisions on taxation policies (sections 3, 4, and 5), arbitrary number for the percentage of stock ownership (section 6), role of BIR (section 7), and role of Government (section 8) (without you, I wouldnt have been able to sharpen the edge of the sword) Micah Fernando (co-author) - for adding the stipulation of investment project as the main actor of the bill (without you, the bill is useless) Thanks to all of these people, I received an email saying that my bill was accepted through the screening process and I am to be placed in a committee. Apparently, bills that fall under a similar scope are grouped together. I was so happy that my bill was going to be debated at the defense sessions to follow. When a bill has been accepted through the screening process, it goes on to the defense sessions where the authors of the bill would defend and prove why the bill must be passed to the plenary then to the senate. In other words, the bills would be debated among the committee members. The accepted bills would then be debated upon in the plenary, where ALL of the 400+ delegates will see it. If the bill passes in the plenary, it will be given to the senate. Insights and reflections from the first day: I was very excited and curious on the first day, perhaps like most of my fellow delegates. After a lengthy gathering with all the 400 delegates (among thousands that applied), we were split into five committees. We started on a preliminary speech stating why our bill should be discussed first. A good Chinese friend of mine said that a bill discussed first has a higher tendency of being passed. Although Im not saying that as if it were a direct correlation, well that bill that went first was the only accepted bill in our committee. From the moment the authors spoke of the bill, I immediately gave my support to the Financial Literacy Bill, the bill that I believe stood out the most due to the fact that, one, it was the first to be discussed, two, it took almost four hours to finish (there was even a motion to lay it on the table to be discussed the next day). Im also happy that there were two bills that are also related to agriculture (which was the subject of my bill). I like how whenever a bill is going to a voting session, the doors are locked so that no one can go in and out during the voting period. Anyways, my bill was designated as the fourth bill to be discussed. My bill was tackled around 2-3pm and lasted for at least an hour. At first, I was given 4 minutes to discuss my bill, which was not enough for me to explain clearly to the delegates due to the heavy technicality and complexity (their words) of the bill. Therefore, a lot of clarifications were in order, as in A LOT. In order to try and satisfy the desire of the delegates (as I understood their concern), I motioned for a 15-minute unmoderated caucus to try and explain things further. Unfortunately, there were more questions asked simultaneously than I could handle. This caused a huge amount of confusion, fueled by some repetitive questions, and questions not meant to clarify but rather to simply bash on the bill despite the lack of complete understanding. Because my co-author was absent and the other placed in another committee room, I was left to fend for myself. Since no one understood the bill during that time, I was forced to answer FOR the bill. Nevertheless, I did my best to try and answer their questions and connect the dots. One of the problems I encountered with my bill is that if not explained completely and clearly, each section looks contradicting to the objective. However, I really appreciate those who finally understood the bill and those who tried to do so. Moreover, perhaps another big mistake I made is that I motioned for an unmoderated caucus instead of a moderated caucus and that I didnt take the opportunity of that extra time to explain the bill even further instead of answer questions, because answering the questions one by one does not connect the bill section per section, which is most essential because by doing so, it wouldve saved a lot of time because it wouldve answered a lot of questions the fellow delegates asked and only by then would the bill be fully understood. However, looking back at this reminds me of a quote by Albert Einstein “If you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough”. I believe this was a lesson for me that if I really understood my topic from all angles, I would find a way to explain this in a simpler way. In the end, there was a motion to lay the bill on the table, which I believe wouldve been the best option as of the moment, but unfortunately there was also a motion to put the bill into voting and that motion won, and sadly my bill lost. Therefore, it wont be presented to the plenary. I was actually surprised when we adjourned and some delegates approached me and gave heartwarming compliments. That was really sweet and unexpected. Insights and reflections from the second day: After losing my bill on the first day, I decided to help promote the financial literacy bill and the remaining agricultural bills. After presenting arguments such as the issue of CARP, unfair treatment towards the landowners due to the heavy sympathy towards farmers, Im glad to have seen two powerful bills collaborate into one. Im really amazed at how they were able to combine certain provisions that complement the sections with the appropriate amendments in such a short amount of time. The ending of the committee sessions was definitely filled with suspense as the agrarian bills were tied, and the vote of one delegate changed it all. In the end, the agrarian bill was scrapped and the committee was left with the financial literacy bill. Time was up and it was time for the plenary session. I was happy to have seen Sen. Loren Legarda for the first time in person. She gave a speech and later allowed an open forum to be done. Sadly, due to time constraints, I wasnt given a chance to ask her directly. Fortunately, that disappointment was compensated by having a few pictures taken with her. I love how the bills who passed the defense sessions were debated upon heavily. Among 5, 6, or 7 bills, only 2 or 3 were accepted. What stood out the most for me was the act about indigenous people, a bill requiring the people to be educated about the indigenous people in an effort to eradicate racial discrimination. Regardless of my personal feelings about the bill, it is apparent that the author won the hearts of the delegates. In addition to that, since racial discrimination is a controversial topic, Im not surprised that the bill was accepted, especially since we are taught that if something discourages racial discrimination, it is something to support, it is what is politically correct. End of event reflection: At the end of the 2 days of PMC, I gained some valuable lessons: 1. It does not matter how smart, detailed, or even good a bill is. If it cannot be explained in a simpler way, then it cannot be fully understood by the people and the author does not fully understand it either. This, I learned from the debate on my bill. 2. Sometimes, even though a bill may not be effective or important, if it wins the heart of the people, they will support it. This is a daily reminder for me that not all people think rationally. This, I learned from the plenary debate on the indigenous people bill and my bill when some people kept on pushing for farmers empowerment when the bill has nothing to do with that. 3. Some people will bash for the sake of doing so, and not for the sake of clarification or genuine concern, but rather for sadistic reasons, egocentric mentality, or other unexplained phenomenon. With all that said and done, Im looking forward to participating in next years Philippine Model Congress. It was an honor to serve the country by being a delegate for this wonderful event. Now, I feel that Ive actually done something good in my life. I shall stick to my bill and try to find a way to simplify the explanation without losing accuracy. Not only did I gain valuable lessons, I also gained memories from the experience and friends who I hope to see again someday.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:49:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015