|
By Amante E. Bigornia
Next to the adoption of a federal form of
government, the proposal to shift the form of government from
presidential to parliamentary would probably be the most convincing
inducement for the people to support the move to amend the 1987
Constitution.
To be sure, the second proposal also has its own
controversial aspects, but in view of recent and ongoing political
developments it might be more acceptable than the first. The
parliamentary system, used by many advanced countries, is perceived
as more responsive to the will of the people.
This was manifested by the impeachment and
subsequent ouster of former president Joseph “Erap” Estrada more
than a year ago by a reprise of the 1986 EDSA revolt.
After his unremarkable impeachment by the House
of Representatives and an aborted and boring Senate trial, president
Estrada skulked from Malacañang to his home in a suburban city on
Jan. 20, 2001. But up to now, his ouster is still keeping Malacañang
in a tizzy with his loyal fans still threatening to topple his
successor.
Shortly after his arrest for plunder, and his
incarceration with his son, former San Juan mayor Jinggoy Estrada,
the disgraced president’s followers tried to depose
newly-installed President Arroyo in the same manner that their hero
was forced out of office: A march from the EDSA Shrine in Quezon
City to Malacañang, ending in a riot that was dispersed by the
police only after several persons were killed or injured. They are
threatening another attempt, also on Labor Day this May 1.
If we had a parliament, a simple motion
declaring lack of confidence in the administration would have done
the trick and, while it may have taken some time for a new go-vernment
to be formed, the likelihood of protests, much less violence, would
have been minimal. There was a time shortly after World War II when
France had a different government almost every week, but no violence
occurred.
However, the system would also have its
disadvantages if adopted in our country. The frequent changes in
government in France did not disrupt government operations because
it had an efficient civil service; the day-to-day operations of
government went on smoothly in spite of the crises. In the
Philippines where the civil service is weak and new administrations
bring in their own people into the go-vernment, frequent changes of
governments could result in chaos.
No new administration would feel secure even
from the very start. Our culture of political opportunism would see
to that, as would the demise of our political party system,
particularly the two-party practice. These aspects of our political
culture would be bound to end the traditional “honeymoon” period
for an incoming president — who is accorded freedom from virulent
criticisms for at least a hundred days — if a parliamentary
government were to be adopted here.
As pointed earlier in this series, our
politicians are notorious for their predilection to change political
loyalties. A mere slight, a favor denied or an opportunity for a
little gain, political or otherwise, can make a pol forget his
principles and bolt his party.
Every perceptive observer of the current
political scene must have noticed that it is only during the
election campaign period that politicians identify themselves with a
party. This is mainly to take advantage of the financial help they
can get from the leaders of the group. But after the elections, they
forget their parties.
Before martial law, the newspapers, when
mentioning the name of an elective official, invariably identified
him by his party and province, a practice borrowed from the American
press. Today, his province is hardly mentioned at all, much less his
party. I have yet to hear a member of Congress complain.
In plenary sessions of parliaments abroad, the
members of the ruling party or coalition sit across a dividing space
from the opposition. If we have a parliament today, the majority
might perhaps assiduously keep their assigned seats, their ears
cocked to Malacañang, but it would not be surprising if members of
the opposition would sit on one side of the aisle one day and on the
other side the next, feeling perfectly at home either way. Or, with
their silly notion of political unity, which would have everyone
march to a single drum regardless of political inclinations, our
legislators would probably disregard the hoary practice totally.
Under the foregoing circumstances, a
parliamentary government would be inutile.
In the last two attempts to amend the
Constitution, the debates hardly reached the issues concerning the
proposed changes in the forms of governments. The opposition to the
proposal to lift the limitations on the terms of elective officials,
which its critics claimed was meant to enable the incumbent
president to perpetuate himself in power, was so strong it
threatened to destabilize the government and both Ramos and Estrada
had to drop Cha-cha like a hot potato.
This time, however, public opposition to it may
no longer be serious. Time has shown that the term limitations have
not discouraged the establishment of political dynasties as the
constitutional commission that drafted the Charter hoped, nor did it
cut the practice of certain elective officials to private armies to
protect them. In fact, this controversial Charter proviso encouraged
the baneful practices.
The charge that Cha-cha is meant to perpetuate
the incumbent president in power cannot be used against President
Arroyo for the simple reason that she can legally run for a full
term, having ascended to the presidency by virtue of the ouster of
Estrada, not by election. At the same time, the people should
realize by now that the term limits have encouraged political
dynasties.
Many elective officials, upon serving their
terms to the full, get their wives or children elected as their
respective surrogates to warm their seats until they can run for
their offices again. Thus emerged the so-called “spice boys” and
later the “spice girls.” A few of them did not do very badly,
considering their parents were not exceptional leaders themselves.
But people may or should now realize that youth is not necessarily a
better qualification for office than experience, however limited.
As for politicians maintaining private armies,
many warlords have found it safer and less messy to have gambling
lords do the dirty work for them; the financial returns may even be
better.
The other amendments proposed are not as
controversial as those heretofore discussed. These include the
proposals to reinstate the senatorial district whereby members of
the Senate are elected by regions instead of at large, and the
removal of the party-list, which can be done through the revival of
the political party system.
The first should be welcome to the people,
particularly those from areas not represented in the Senate today.
Mindanao, for one, has only two representatives in that chamber,
Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Robert Barbers, the latter
a native of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. It could also discourage the
election of comics, aging movie stars and retired basketball
players, who make that august chamber a mockery of lawmaking
institutions.
The party-list, which has elected a few members
to the House of Representatives, is a political innovation that has
not caught fire. Representing mostly cause-oriented organizations
with limited interests, like fishermen’s groups and farmers, the
party-list members can join the legislative process only when their
respective areas of interest are involved, which is not often. They
have therefore been restricted to what is called “fiscalizing”
or criticizing the administration. Some of the party-list
representatives must feel uneasy when they receive their salaries.
From the way the press is giving prominence to
stories about Cha-cha, it would appear that there is indeed a
developing groundswell of support for it. That may be true, but it
could become academic if the issue of the mode for amending the
Charter is not handled correctly.
There are three means by which the fundamental
law of the land may be amended. First is by a constitutional
convention, second by Congress constituting itself into a
consti-tuent assembly, and third by a peoples’ initiative. The
last is an innovation introduced in the present Charter. Upon a
petition by at least 12 percent of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must he represented by
three percent of the votes therein, an amendment may become part of
the supreme law if ratified by a majority vote in a national
plebiscite. Former president Ramos tried the last mode but
opposition to Cha-cha was so strong he gave it up.
Most members of the House favor the se-cond
means, ostensibly because the nation cannot afford the sum needed
for a constitutional convention, which they estimate to cost P3
billion. However, perceptive political obser-vers, aware of the
mediocrity of the current representatives of the people in
government, are afraid the amended Charter that the Congress, acting
as a constituent assembly, will produce, might be worse than the
1987 Constitution.
But more crucial at this time than a decision on
the mode of changing the Charter is the need for the people to be
made conversant with Constitution and the urgency of rectifying its
defects. The vast majority of the people have not read the Charter,
much less understood the far-reaching implications of its
provisions. Any sensible, intelligent national debate on Cha-cha at
this point is therefore out of the question.
Hence, its advocate must first mount an
extensive and intensive educational campaign on the Charter if the
people are to react wisely to the proposals for correcting its
flaws. Time and money should not be impediments to the citizens’
knowledgeable participation in the process of improving the Charter.
Haste contributed immensely to make it flawed. The mounting support
for Cha-cha indicates the people are getting to realize that most of
their problems and that of the nation stem from these defects.
|
