CHARGES against four members of Parliament in Britain for falsely claiming parliamentary expenses are rocking the foundations of the United Kingdom?s political system.

The political storm over the ?dishonest claims? of the MPs involved three from the ruling Labor Party and one from the Tory Party.

The storm erupted at the same time that the Philippine Senate (an institution that has great pretensions as a bulwark of democracy) is split over a report of its top committee finding that one of its senior members, Manuel Villar, is guilty of unethical conduct in relation to the C-5 road extension project.

The Senate committee of the whole, which includes 22 senators, has recommended the censure of Villar for transactions of his real estate companies associated with the project.

The circumstances surrounding the charges against the four British MPs are different from those surrounding the case against Villar, but these essentially involve ethical issues.

The purpose of this report is to illustrate the contrasting manner by which the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments, and the Philippine Senate are handling cases involving members who have been investigated for wrongdoing or abuse of parliamentary privilege.

There is public outrage in the Philippines over Villar?s transactions, as there is outrage in Britain over the MP claims of expenses stemming from the discharge of parliamentary duties.

This report is based on accounts of British media, especially BBC News and Financial Times.

On Friday, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer laid charges of false accounting under Section 17 of the Theft Act of 1968 against MPs Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor, all Labor, and the Tory peer Lord Hanningfield.

Rent, cleaning services

The MPs face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison if convicted. Morley faces two charges over 30,000 pounds of mortgage-interest claims; Chaytor is accused of dishonestly claiming 1,950 pounds for IT services and 18,000 pounds in rent; Devine is accused of claiming 3,240 pounds for cleaning services and 5,500 pounds for stationery; and Lord Hanningfield faces six charges of dishonestly submitting expense claims.

Lord Hanningfield denies the charge, saying he will ?vigorously? defend himself in court. However, he immediately stood down from front-bench duties in the House of Lords, as shadow business spokesperson ?to avoid embarrassment or distraction for [his] party.?

The Conservatives suspended him from the parliamentary party. He has also quit as leader of the Essex County Council.

The Labor Party was no less severe on its MPs. All three Labor MPs denied the charges and said they would defend themselves ?vigorously.? Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown was outraged, saying he was ?very angry about what has happened.?

Serious criminal allegations

He said: ?We took steps some months ago to remove the right of these people to stand as candidates for the Labor Party. These are very serious criminal allegations. All criminal allegations have got to be investigated. It?s a matter now for the courts.?

The four men will not be arrested but will be sent a summons to turn up on March 11 at the City of Westminster magistrates court.

?We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned,? the prosecutor said.

The MPs invoked their privilege of parliamentary immunity, saying they maintain that the issue should be resolved by the parliamentary commissioner ?who is there to enforce any breach of the rules.?

Their lawyers are expected to claim their expenses are covered by parliamentary privilege, which traditionally protects them from being sued for what they say in the House of Commons.

The prosecutor addressed the issue of parliamentary privilege when he announced the decision to press charges.

?We have considered that question and concluded that applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court,? he said.

Impunity

A Labor MP, Paul Flynn, appealed to his three colleagues to ignore the lawyers? argument about parliamentary privilege.

Flynn said it was never intended to give politicians ?immunity? from criminal charges and if used it would ?deepen and prolong? the expenses scandal which has gripped Westminster.

?There may be a technical argument about this, but it is one that will be treated with contempt by the majority of the people of this country,? he told BBC.

?Already, they feel cynicism about the politicians, saying there?s one for the MPs and one for the rest of us,? he added.

While Villar?s case does not involve dishonest claims of expenses, the Senate report also involves an ethical issue, based on a Senate investigation of the charges brought by Sen. Jamby Madrigal.

The criminal charges against the MPs stemmed from investigations for nine months of their claims by the parliamentary oversight bodies.

Defiant

Villar?s real estate transactions were also investigated by his peers, as the claims of the expenses of the MPs were investigated and acted upon by their peers.

One difference is that Villar does not face criminal charges over his transactions. Villar has taken a defiant stand against peers who find him guilty of unethical conduct.

Villar boycotted the hearings on the case and refused to face colleagues critical of him to defend himself.

He said he was not expecting a fair deal from the majority senators who signed the report because they were biased against him.

The issue of parliamentary privilege has not been raised in the C-5 case.

Allies of Villar, a presidential candidate, have argued that he, as a senator, cannot be forced to appear at the committee hearings and to accept the report?s decision seeking his censure.

Preview of Villar?s attitude

His defiance gives a preview of an attitude that Villar is above censure and accountability for his actions connected to his companies? activities to push the C-5 project.

The project is covered by appropriations in which he intervened during its budgetary hearings as member of Congress.

There?s no way that he will step down or suspend his campaign for the presidency while a boycott of his allies is preventing the Senate from voting to censure him.

He remains untouchable in this regard. In stonewalling on the committee report, Villar is a law unto himself and above the rules of the Senate on disciplinary action for breach of the rules.

There are no party sanctions to bar him from election activity until he is cleared by the Senate, simply because he is president of the Nacionalista Party.