🕓 Last Updated: July 3, 2025, 1:09 am (PH time)
Behind every lawmaker is a silent servant of the people. Public service. Patriotism. Purpose.
— Regel Javines, Founder & Editor | The Philippine Pundit
People’s Congress CARE Program: A Sui Generis, Redefining Public Service
The CARE program of the House of Representatives is a sui generis initiative in the Philippine legislative landscape, fusing public service, civic education, and real-time constituent assistance under one institutional roof. Furthermore, it qualifies as sui generis (a Latin term meaning “of its own kind” or “unique”. In legal, political, and institutional language, it is often used to describe something that doesn’t neatly fit into existing categories. And in the case of the Congressional Assistance, Response, and Education or CARE program, so far, it qualifies as such for the following reasons:
- It is not mandated by any specific law or executive issuance, yet it operates formally within the House of Representatives under the authority of the Speaker and Secretariat.
- It blends legislative support services with quasi-executive functions (e.g., direct aid, public education, constituent casework), which are not traditionally part of the House of Representatives’ core mandate.
- It semi-institutionalizes public outreach and real-time service delivery from a legislative body—a role normally assigned to executive agencies.
- So far, there has yet to be another program in the Philippine Congress that is structured or branded like CARE, making it a unique mechanism of citizen engagement and responsiveness.
CARE consultants, the contract-based title for these congressional support staff, believe that genuine transformation must begin with the tiniest deeds of kindness—and that the nation is bolstered not just in the corridors of Congress but also by the unsung efforts of those who serve in the background, holding on to real stories, real public service, and fighting against the worsening state of online misinformation with its blazing hope to reclaim the nation.
It is a no-brainer that in a time when lies spread faster than facts, only real, unyielding service to the people can cut through the noise and reclaim the truth. At the front lines of service, the congressional support workforce stands silently. Being akin to a war zone-like responder, they may be the first to respond, the last to leave, and frequently the only ones who listen, fulfilling the duty of public service every single day. They ensure that every voice is heard by bridging the gap between promises and lives in need, as well as between policies and people. They do it because, as the program’s tagline suggests, ‘I CARE, we CARE’—they genuinely care.
Relevantly, in a time when governance is increasingly scrutinized and public trust is fragile, institutionalizing people-centered programs such as the CARE (Congressional Assistance, Response, and Education) of the House of Representatives program (also known as HREP CARE) is not just an administrative innovation—it is a democratic necessity.
Launched as a proactive platform for constituency outreach, CARE stands for Congressional Assistance, Response, and Education—a legislative support initiative aimed at bridging the gap between the lawmakers and the lives of ordinary Filipinos. Institutionalizing CARE would signify a transformative step in ensuring sustainable, responsive, and accessible government service through the lower house of Congress. And its relevance and significance are timely and urgent.
Legal Basis and Jurisprudential Context
Though no specific statute currently mandates the CARE program of the House of Representatives, its core functions align with the constitutional mandates, traditional powers, and public service of Congress:
📌 Article VI, Section 24 of the 1987 Constitution gives the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate money bills, underscoring its fundamental role in addressing public needs through appropriations.
📌 The oversight and constituent services functions of members of Congress are historically acknowledged roles, supported by public funds under the General Appropriations Act (GAA), including the congressional district office budgets that lawmakers use for medical, burial, and educational assistance.
📌 The Supreme Court ruling in Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) outlawed the PDAF, or the pork barrel system, but did not prohibit post-enactment roles of lawmakers in implementing national assistance programs so long as there is no violation of the principle of separation of powers.
The HREP CARE program, therefore, operates within legal boundaries when institutionalized under a transparent, pre-approved programmatic framework administered by the Secretariat.
HREP CARE in Global Context: Comparative Examples
Globally, legislative bodies have similar outreach and constituent assistance mechanisms as the House of Representatives’ CARE program is formed and administered:
📌 The U.S. Congress has dedicated Constituent Services Offices that help American citizens navigate federal services, including health, veterans’ affairs, and education. These entire services are institutionalized and funded by the Member Representational Allowance (MRA).
📌 UK Parliament members, on the other hand, operate constituency surgeries, where citizens can discuss personal problems with MPs, who then facilitate government responses.
📌 Canada’s House of Commons also mandates constituency offices for each MP, staffed to provide government navigation services, immigration help, and local advocacy.
However, like any other government program and institutionalized government assistance, there are pros and cons of institutionalization. Let’s take a look at these few pros and cons, and you can also add some by commenting on this article for a more concrete and holistic approach to these musings on institutionalizing the CARE program of the House of Representatives:
✅ Pros:
Institutionalizing it
- ensures continuity regardless of political leadership;
- strengthens public trust through structured delivery; and
- enables data tracking, policy feedback, and impact evaluation.
✅ Cons:
Institutionalizing it, however,
- gives rise to risks of politicization or selective access if not regulated. Also,
- it poses problems for budget sustainability in a growing bureaucracy, and
- one way or another, duplication of executive functions occurs if roles are not delineated.
Significance of CARE Under PBBM and Speaker Martin Romualdez’s Leadership
As far as the CARE program’s important role and its pivotal impact are concern, under the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and the decisive leadership of House Speaker Martin Romualdez, the institutionalization of the CARE program aligns with the #BagongPilipinas governance framework, anchored on inclusive growth, responsive governance, and national unity.
Moreover, as far as the vision and leadership of Speaker Romualdez are concerned, he has continuously emphasized service-oriented legislation and public accessibility to programs that uplift grassroots communities. Relationally, the HREP CARE program reinforces this advocacy by ensuring that no Filipino is left behind, especially those in the margins who lack the means to seek assistance from complex government agencies and are also the most likely to fall victim to misinformation or the intentional spread of fake news.
In an era where fake news, deepfakes, and AI-assisted propaganda distort public understanding of government programs, CARE becomes more than just a support service—it is a bastion of truth and direct engagement. By providing concrete, measurable aid to people in the form of educational support, or be it health referrals or even livelihood access, CARE serves as the House’s antidote to disinformation, showing the people what real, on-the-ground service looks like.
Why Institutionalize CARE Now?
Institutionalizing CARE ensures that it:
- survives beyond political transitions, thus becoming a permanent interface between Congress and the people;
- creates a system of accountability through transparent mechanisms and digital tools; and
- builds a democratic legacy where government is not just a policymaker but a responsive partner.
In the words of President Marcos Jr., “Unity is not a slogan—it is a mandate.” Programs like CARE must evolve from being mere initiatives into institutional commitments that reflect a #HouseOfThePeople that is truly for the people. Programs like CARE generate public servants working behind the scenes of every lawmaker to fast-track programs and services, uniting and educating the people at large.
Finally, when it comes to dissecting its core purpose at its heart, the CARE program is a reaffirmation of the House of Representatives’ social contract with the Filipino people. As the nation navigates the complexities of AI, post-pandemic recovery, and political polarization, institutionalizing CARE sends a strong signal: public service must be personal, responsive, and enduring.
Let CARE not remain a seasonal project. Let it become a pillar. ▲
SEO Keywords: care program, congressional assistance response and education, house of representatives programs, martin romualdez, public service in congress, institutionalized government assistance
💬 AI Use Disclosure: This is an AI technology-assisted article (ChatGPT, OpenAI). 👉 Learn more about our use of AI.
References
- Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, 710 SCRA 1 (2013). The LawPhil Project. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html
- Congress of the Philippines. (1987). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
- U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). Constituent Services. https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/constituent-services
- UK Parliament. (n.d.). MPs and their work. https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/
- Parliament of Canada. (n.d.). Members’ Offices and Services. https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en
- Republic of the Philippines. (2025). General Appropriations Act of 2025. https://dbm.gov.ph/index.php/budget-documents/2025
Regel Javines is the founder/editor-publisher of The Philippine Pundit. Born in Leyte and raised by struggle, he writes truth from the margins. His work explores the intersections of politics, spirituality, and life’s deeper questions. Blogging since 2011, Regel has contributed incisive political analysis to global citizen journalism platforms, giving voice to stories often left unheard. Currently, he works as a consultant for the Congressional Assistance, Response, and Education (CARE) Program of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.