I write not as a politician, not as a lawyer, but as a Filipino student citizen who has grown frustrated watching important legislation gather dust in committee rooms for years, for decades, without ever receiving the dignity of a floor vote. 

I am writing to respectfully advocate for a concept I believe is long overdue: The adoption of a Legislative Shot Clock — a defined deadline by which a bill filed in the Senate must receive a recorded vote.

This is purely my observation and opinion. I am asking in advance, a pardon, if my words seem to be inappropriate. 

I. The Problem: Silence as a Tactic

The 1987 Philippine Constitution grants the Senate the authority to promulgate and determine its own rules of proceedings. This autonomy was intended to protect the independence of the legislative branch. However, over the decades, this autonomy has also become a shield for inaction.

Bills are filed, referred to committees, and quietly buried. Not because they were debated and found wanting, but because they were never debated at all. The phrase "under study" has become a polished synonym for "being ignored." It carries no timeline, no accountability, and no consequences. A lawmaker can file a bill, announce it to constituents as proof of legislative work, and then allow it to quietly expire when Congress adjourns — never having taken a definitive stand.

The most painful evidence of this pattern is the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill for almost forty (40) years, SOGIE Bill for almost twenty-six (26) years, National Land Use Act for almost thirty (30) years, and the Freedom of Information Bill for almost thirty (30) years. Both have been filed in virtually every Congress since the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. Nearly 40 years have passed. They remain unacted upon—not because the Senate studied them and voted No, but because the Senate avoided having to vote at all. It is no coincidence that both bills directly threaten the personal interests of those who are supposed to pass them. When a bill talks about transparency and accountability, congress has a hard time passing them.

II. The Precedent: The Supreme Court's Impeachment Shot Clock

The legal and constitutional basis for this proposal is grounded in recent jurisprudence. In its ruling on the impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared the proceedings unconstitutional and, in doing so, promulgated a new procedural rule: once an impeachment complaint is filed in Congress, the House must act on it within ten (10) session days.

This ruling establishes a powerful precedent. It affirms that procedural deadlines — shot clocks — are not only permissible but necessary to preserve the integrity of constitutional processes. If the Supreme Court can impose a timeline on impeachment proceedings, which are exclusively legislative in nature, then surely the Senate can, by amending its own rules, impose a timeline on the passage of legislation. The principle is identical: inaction is not neutrality. Inaction is a choice, and it must be accountable.

III. The Proposal: A Legislative Shot Clock

I propose that the Senate amend its Rules of Procedure to include the following core mechanics:

A. Primary Deadline. Once a bill is filed, the Senate shall act upon it — through a plenary vote — within one hundred eighty (180) session days from the date of filing. (Subject for change and opinion as will be determined through studying.) Not necessarily complete the session days before plenary vote, if it can be done with a short period of time, much better.

B. Extension with Justification. A committee may request a reasonable extension of time, provided that a written justification is submitted specifying: (a) the exact issues under study, (b) the additional information required, and (c) a concrete timeline for completion. This justification shall be a matter of public record. Extensions shall not be indefinite and may only be granted once per bill.

C. Mandatory Floor Vote. Upon expiration of the deadline or any approved extension, the bill must be brought to the floor for a vote. No abstention shall be permitted on final reading. Each Senator must vote Yes or No.

D. Public Record of Votes. All votes on final reading shall be recorded and made publicly accessible, to ensure that constituents know the definitive stance of their elected representatives on every piece of legislation.

The logic is straightforward. If a bill is worthy, vote Yes. If it is flawed, vote No — and let the author refile it with revisions. What is no longer acceptable is the permanent non-answer: the bill that is neither passed nor rejected, but simply abandoned. Senators were elected to decide. A shot clock ensures they do.

It is already 2026. The Anti-Dynasty Bill is nearly forty years overdue. The Freedom of Information Bill remains a promise unfulfilled. We do not need a new constitution to fix this. We need the Senate and House of  Representatives to amend its own rules — a power it already possesses — and to hold itself to a standard of accountability it has long avoided.