Blitz

It is going to happen. The constitutional order will be reformed.

Preliminary meetings were held over the weekend involving individuals and groups who want a shift to a parliamentary and federal form of government. The mood was upbeat.

The most important idea that gelled the last weekend is that this should be done quickly. If we tarry, if we hew and haw, if we drag our feet this thing will never get done.

Speed is the essence of the strategy. We need a blitz to change the Charter.

The spearpoint of this strategy is to get the new Congress to issue a joint resolution or pass a law, whichever is required, calling for a Constitutional Convention. A proposed 100-person convention is proposed, half to be designated by Congress and the other half by the Executive Branch.

There is no need to elect a Constitutional Convention. The 1987 Constitution does not specify that such a body needs to be elected into office.  The Congress is a representative institution. The incoming presidency was mandated to undertake Charter change.

The elected 1971 Constitutional Convention was a sorry experience. It was large and unwieldy assembly, elected according to the congressional districts. It was heavily politicized. The proceedings just went on and on. In the end, the “Con-Con” was overtaken by the imposition of martial rule.

There is no need to recreate the 1971 Con-Con. The demand of the moment is expediency and efficiency. In the end, the popular will be exercised in a plebiscite.

There is nothing really new in the debate.

Since 1935, we debated the issue between the presidential and parliamentary forms of government.

The 1935 Charter adopted the presidential/unitary form of government. The provision for a regionally elected Senate was amended soon after to create the strange institution we have today, a legislative chamber where over half of the members garnered more votes than the President of the Republic.

The 1973 Constitution was molded according to the requirements of an authoritarian regime that was well in place by the time this hybrid document was ostensibly submitted to the people in some sort of “plebiscite.” The government structure featured both a parliament and a strong presidency. It set up a form of government that could not survive the Marcos regime.

The 1987 Charter which we now have was crafted rather haphazardly by a motley group of 50 appointed by President Corazon Aquino.

This Constitution originally intended to establish a parliamentary form of government. At the last moment, however, the draft was overtaken by the most pragmatic of considerations: how to guarantee that Aquino continues to wield power in the midst of all the political instability pertaining.

By a single swing vote, advocates of a return to a presidential system won over advocates of a shift to a parliamentary form. The original features relating to parliamentary politics were left to litter a document that signaled a return to presidential politics. Among these are: the multi-party electoral format (without provision for a runoff) that guaranteed we will always have a minority president; and a strange creature called the “party-list system” that was soon coopted by traditional politicians and vested interests to serve their purposes.

The 1987 Charter “constitutionalized” protectionist economic dogma that was already irrelevant when the document was written. By enshrining old economic dogma in the texts of a basic law, this Charter made pragmatic and flexible economic policy-making impossible.

The worst feature of the 1987 Constitution is not written in any provision. This is a Charter that has proven impermeable to amendment. Various attempts to introduce amendments to this over-written document have thus far failed.

This is a document determined to persist despite irrelevance. There could be no crueler trick played upon our people.

The presidential system, especially in the manner we designed it through law and political practice, practically guarantees government failure.

Notwithstanding that the three constitutions we have had, all anchored on a strong executive personality, failed us, some of us still insist on retaining it. It seems to me this fits exactly into the classical definition of madness: to do a same thing over and over again and yet expect a different outcome each time.

The truly novel idea now pervading among the groups advocating constitutional reform is to shift the formal to a federal system of government.

Although we have attempted to decentralize and devolve government functions over the past few decades, manly to enhance accountability, federalism seems an entirely new thing.

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte embraced federalism as his distinguishing advocacy in the last elections.   Last week, in his meeting with representatives of the MNLF and the MILF, he appears to have convinced the rebel groups to coordinate their quest for more meaningful autonomy with the more encompassing national project of federalism.

The President’s commitment to achieving federalism makes Charter change a lot more certain. The comprehensive reorganization of our national life will be Duterte’s lasting legacy.

No one else could undertake the urgent constitutional renovation than Duterte. He stipulated it in his campaign platform. He is committed to the idea. He has both the mandate and the force of personality to see it through.

This is the season to begin the process. Advocates have organized consultations nationwide over the next two months. The social media campaign is being geared up.

With a more streamline plan of action, this could be done by the end of this year or early next year. Let the blitz begin.