Senators on Monday lamented how implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) issued by the executive department have clashed, or even "twisted" the intention of laws passed by Congress.

The discussion in their plenary session stemmed from the privilege speech of Senator Francis "Tol" Tolentino, who cited an "anomaly" between laws and IRRs.

"We find out that some of our laws, these once well-intentioned, restorative pieces of legislation, have been leading us to the depths of ignorance, confusion and even unlawfulness by its IRR...I rise today out of fear and apprehension that the very laws that my colleagues and I have created and will give life here in this august chamber as representatives of the people, may have been twisted into these deformed, unrecognizable implementing rules and regulations," Tolentino said.

"The spring cannot rise higher than the source, as the old legal maxim goes, but this humble representation believes that the spring is not just rising higher, but it threatens to overflow and spill from the source and drown us all. These IRRs have not only misinterpreted our laws, but ultimately defied the will of the people as the real sovereign imbibed in our laws," he added.

He cited 46 Supreme Court (SC) cases where the IRRs of various agencies where struck down for supposedly usurping the power of Congress. 

"Despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncements, there remain laws with IRRs that are at odds with each other, leaving the public in confusion and diluting the impact the well-meaning law could have had," he said.

In his speech, Tolentino proposed the review and revision of the Senate's rules to allow legislators to draft with concerned government agencies an IRR for bills before they are signed by the President or lapse into law.

He also said that proposed IRRs be submitted to an oversight committee in the Senate for review and recommendations "on how to harmonize the IRR with the law".

IRR 'unnecessary'

Senate President Vicente Sotto III lauded Tolentino for bringing up the issue, saying this has long been a problem in the implementation of laws in the country.

He raised anew the delay in the enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act as the implementing agencies were awaiting the IRR being crafted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ has recently finished drafting its initial IRR, Secretary Menardo Guevarra said last week.

"May mga dialogue sila, naririnig ko, na hinihintay 'yong IRR (I have heard their dialogues, that they are waiting for the IRR). That's BS (bullshit). It's already a law, it's already signed by the President -- anong (what) IRR? It's not necessary, they have to implement the law," maintained Sotto, one of its principal authors.

"What I noticed is that they are deliberately interpreting what is contained in our laws. Like in the Anti-Terror Law, on the IRR, it only says there that IRRs are 'for the effective implementation', not for the implementation...Baka gusto nila Tagalugin natin para maintidihan nila (Maybe they want us to translate the law in Tagalog so they'll understand)," he said later.

Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri also agreed with Tolentino's observations. He said laws were being "manipulated" thru their IRRs, which are "sometimes crafted to the advantage of the department, to the disadvantage of the law."

Senators Joel Villanueva, Lito Lapid, Cynthia Villar, and Emmanuel Pacquiao also shared their frustration over the failure in implementing laws due to the lack of IRRs, their delayed issuance or the over-interpretation of agencies. Sens. Richard Gordon and Sherwin Gatchalian said this issue has also cost the lives of people.

A "better" idea, Sotto said, is to remove a provision in laws that "delegate" the crafting of IRRs to agencies.

Supporting this proposal, Tolentino said limit the "intrusion" of administrative agencies in Congress' powers and prevent them from crafting IRRs that "derail, mutilate, and prevent the true expression of the legislative will of Congress."

"Parang meron silang (Like they have a) veto power eh, no? The executive department has veto power as long as they don't do the IRR, ang tingin nila hindi dapat i-implement 'yong batas (they think the law should not be implemented)," Sotto said.

Separation of powers

Some senators, however, believed that proposals to involve lawmakers in crafting IRRs might violate the separation of powers between the three branches of government.

"Indeed, the rules and regulations must follow the law. The remedy however is we go to court and declare the rules and regulations as illegal, as being not provided in the law, and therefore should be voided. Because that is our system of government. It is the judiciary which interprets finally whether or not a particular act of two other branches are consistent with the Constitution," said Drilon, who was a former DOJ secretary.

"Our role is if their IRRs are not consistent with our policy, since our policy, as enunciated in the law, is superior to the rules issued by the executive, we can go to court and have that voided," he told his colleagues.

But Drilon agreed with Sotto that "the effectivity of the law cannot be depended on the rules and regulations...The non-issuance of IRR will not prevent the effectivity of the law."

Sen. Pia Cayetano also raised a SC decision barring Congress from being involved in the crafting of the IRR of laws. She also said that some legislators tend to craft vague laws and leave the specifics to the IRR, paving the way for the interpretations from the executive department.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson likewise cited the same ruling, saying: "We may have a problem if we follow the suggestion of the gentleman from Cavite (Tolentino) that we amend our rules to allow the senators to participate or the Senate to participate in the crafting of the IRR."

"We can exercise oversight, but we cannot directly participate in the crafting of the IRR," he added.

Members of the Senate will meet next week to come up with proposed solutions on the disconnect between the country's laws and their IRRs, Zubiri said.