THERE is much to be said for a bill that seeks to impose a “no work, no pay” compensation scheme for members of Congress, as such a measure would curb absenteeism, strengthen accountability, and safeguard public funds.
House Bill 7432, or the No Work, No Pay for Members of Congress Act, filed by House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, mandates that salaries and other emoluments of senators and representatives be directly tied to their attendance and participation in plenary sessions, committee hearings, and other official legislative duties.
“The principle of ‘no work, no pay’ is a general labor standard applied to workers across the country. However, members of Congress, who are entrusted with the responsibility of crafting laws and representing the people, are currently compensated regardless of attendance or participation,” Marcos said in the bill’s explanatory note.
This practice has fueled public concern “over absenteeism, lack of accountability and wastage of taxpayer funds,” he added.
Although the lawmaker did not cite any specific example, the recent case of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa springs to mind. In fear of being arrested after rumors circulated that the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest for his role in former president Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs, dela Rosa has been absent from the Senate since Nov. 11, 2025, continuing through the resumption of sessions in late January 2026. During this time, he skipped sessions for over two months, including critical 2026 budget deliberations where he was scheduled to defend the Department of National Defense’s budget.
His continued and prolonged absence has sparked discussions among the public, who question why the senator’s salary should continue to be paid with taxpayers’ money while he cowers from imagined threats and shirks his responsibility as an elected official.
The Senate president defended the practice, saying this has always been the way things were done.
Marcos’ bill seeks to change all that.
“The measure seeks to correct this by ensuring that public funds are spent only when these elected officials fulfill their duties. Tying compensation to actual work “promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in governance,” Marcos said.
Under the measure, lawmakers will be paid only for days when they are present and performing official legislative work, including attendance in plenary sessions, participation in committee hearings where they are listed members, and engagement in authorized official activities.
Unexcused absences — such as dela Rosa’s — will result in the forfeiture of compensation, while valid absences are recognized, including illness certified by a licensed physician, authorized official representation, official travel or mission approved by chamber leadership, and approved leaves of absence.
In many political systems, ours included, a legislator’s salary is treated as a fixed constitutional entitlement, rather than an hourly wage. This means they are generally paid regardless of their daily attendance in the chamber, provided they remain in office.
This arrangement recognizes that legislators are often expected to perform duties outside the chamber — such as meeting constituents, committee work, or district oversight — making it legally complex to track “work” solely by floor attendance.
Instead of pay cuts, ethics committees, public disclosure of attendance, or the election cycle are seen as the primary means of holding absentee lawmakers accountable.
But dela Rosa’s case demonstrates the inequitable loopholes inherent in the system. Hiding from perceived threats posed by law enforcement hardly qualifies as meeting with constituents or district oversight. And despite the senator’s prolonged, unexcused absence, none of his other 23 colleagues has seen fit to file an ethics complaint, one of the theoretical remedies to absenteeism in the legislature.
In a society where the vast majority of its workforce operates under “no work, no pay” conditions, legislators should not be a protected class of workers. If a citizen loses wages for missing a shift at a factory or office, a lawmaker should face the same consequence for missing a session of Congress.
Punishing absent lawmakers would reinforce the idea that public office is a service based on active duty, rather than a privileged entitlement.
Moreover, modern technology today enables legislators to consult with constituents remotely, or simply to schedule their work outside of the chamber more efficiently to account for fixed session days that are scheduled well in advance.
Finally, from a budgetary standpoint, paying full salaries to absent members is a waste of taxpayer funds — a particularly relevant argument these days, given recent revelations of high-level corruption in which public funds have been diverted.
Just like taxpayers should only pay for flood control projects that really exist, the state should only pay for services rendered. Any savings from attendance-based deductions can be channeled back to public services or used to cover administrative costs of the legislature itself.
