A proposal filed in the House of Representatives is pushing to change how members of Congress are compensated by conditioning their pay on documented legislative work rather than fixed entitlement.
House Bill No. 7432, authored by Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand Alexander A. Marcos, advances a “no work, no pay” framework that would require lawmakers to be physically or officially present and actively involved in plenary sessions, committee hearings, and other sanctioned congressional functions before compensation is released.
The measure is anchored on the view that while the “no work, no pay” principle already applies broadly to workers nationwide, elected legislators continue to receive salaries and allowances regardless of attendance. The bill positions this gap as a source of public frustration, citing concerns over absenteeism, weak accountability, and the use of taxpayer money without measurable performance.
Under the proposal, compensation would be calculated only for days when a senator or representative is recorded as performing official legislative duties. Attendance in plenary deliberations, participation in committee proceedings where the lawmaker is a listed member, and engagement in authorized official activities would qualify as compensable workdays.
The bill outlines specific circumstances that would still be considered valid attendance even in the absence of a lawmaker from regular sessions. These include certified medical conditions, official representation duties approved by chamber leadership, authorized missions or travel, and formally approved leaves of absence.
To prevent abuse, the measure requires each chamber’s secretariat to maintain daily attendance logs and mandates that pay computation be based strictly on verified records. Attendance data would also be made publicly accessible as a transparency mechanism.
The proposal further introduces penalties for falsifying attendance or claiming compensation without performing official duties, classifying such acts as misconduct subject to disciplinary action under existing congressional rules.
In addressing possible constitutional objections, the bill points to the 1987 Constitution’s provision allowing compensation for senators and representatives to be determined by law, asserting that attendance-based regulation falls within Congress’ legislative authority.
