What shall actors, jokers, and boxers do in the Senate?

The primordial task of senators is to make laws and not to entertain the people.

- Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez

We have an excess of actors, jesters, boxers, basketball players, and all those "second-rate, trying-hard copycats", to borrow Cherry Gil's famous repartee. If we need legislators, we should elect competent men and women who know the art and science of law, of lawmaking, and of the intricate protocols of the legislative processes. If so, why are actors and boxers leading the surveys?

We Filipinos do love actors, boxers, and basketball players because they entertain us, they give us excitement and help us remove the boredom, the ennui, and the inanities of colorless life. These actors give us drama, action movies, war films, and romantic episodes. They have roles to play in human society and they also create values that help in economic development, cultural enrichment, and even historical education. But do we really need them in the Senate?

Do actors have the basic education in the art and science of legislation, which is their main line of official functions? Do they understand such fundamental principles in constitutional and political law like separation of powers, checks and balances and parliamentary procedures? Do they understand how a bill becomes a law? Do they know how to make a motion or to engage in intelligent parliamentary debate? Do they master the procedures for budget-making and legislative investigation in aid of legislation?

What then shall actors do in the Senate? Should they merely rely on the advice and counsel of their hired consultants and unelected subalterns and underlings? Should they exercise their political mandate by delegating it to technocrats who were not chosen by the people? Should they blindly affix their signatures and lend their official imprimatur to the drafts of bills prepared by young lawyers engaged as their technical and legal assistants?