Highlight: It is not ‘election of de-legates’ that will ensure the passage of the constitutional reforms but the political will of our leaders, Mr. Drilon included. If those of us in civil society have latched on to constituent assembly mode, it is because we want to make sure it is done this time.
It is good that Lakas-CMD (Christian Muslim Democrats) has adopted constitutional reform now as its party platform. That is a move in the right direction. It will reinforce the campaign against personality-oriented politics that has been the bane of the country’s development. From hereon, elections should be based on party political platforms and their successful implementation. The question should not be whether President Macapagal-Arroyo would renege on her word and run again. It is not
she that is being voted upon, but
her program of government. Otherwise we’re back to traditional politics.
If the electorate thinks her program of government is working for the country, then she should run regardless of her promise but this should be within a parliamentary government. The logic is simple. She does not renege on her promise by running for member of parliament like all other contenders. In parliamentary government may the best man or woman win. And that is only on a trial basis. If she does not deliver the program of government, out she goes. Our neighbors around us, and in more than a hundred other countries around the world, have discovered that parliamentary federal government is the more efficient and more importantly, immediately accountable to the people. It also makes for continuation of policies and stability required by long term investors.
I can symphatize with Vice-President Guingona’s concern about our "national patrimony". But to say that constitutional reform would endanger control of our natural resources is wide off the mark. The constitutional reform envisioned is to enhance our capacity to develop our natural resources for the benefit of our teeming masses who are so poor they have no jobs, no houses, no food. The challenge is not to stop the changes that will shape the political framework through which development can best be fulfilled. The challenge is
after – once the new political framework is erected – to see to it that economic development benefits the people. Then, more than ever, we will need fiscalizers like Vice President Guingona. That is why Secretary Heherson Alvarez is right in saying that there is no conflict between the Vice President’s position and the party stand.
"The thrust of the party’s move for constitutional amendments is on restructuring the country’s policy making and executive system, strengthening its civil service and reforming its bureaucratic institutions to accelerate the nation’s development modernization. What is important is to reconfigure the present form or structure of government to make it more attuned and responsive to the demands of national development. Economic reforms could be discussed later either by the body that will carry out the constitutional revision or by the parliament under the new form of government after a new political structure is put in place. At that point the Guingona position could be sustained by the party or the parliament itself," Alvarez said as Lakas-CMD spokesman. .
Intellectual dishonesty. I cringe every time Senate President Franklin Drilon makes a pitch to postpone constitutional reform without batting an eyelash. It is because he himself told me that constitutional reform was urgent and that was almost immediately after the senatorial elections in 2001. We are now into 2003. What has he done to inform the public about what he said was an urgent task?
I do not understand whom he means by the term
people. If he means 82 million Filipinos, I can say the same thing for him. With very much less resources than the millions he has as senator of the land, several groups have been doing their bit to educate the public on constitutional reform. Their work may not get into the headlines but the constitutional reform movement has held numerous seminars, meetings and recently, a nationwide convention . There are other groups that have coalesced under the banner of
Coalition for Constitutional Change Now that includes over a thousand NGOs, POs, cooperatives, networks, labor, party-list groups and basic sectors, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Philippine-Chinese Chambers of Commerce, the religious group of Brother Eddie Villanueva, the Management Association, the AGTA under Brother Rollie Dizon of La Salle.
The Coalition for Constitutional Change Now has also dialogued and received support from 1.2 million LGUs through the League of Governors, League of Mayors, City Mayors, municipal mayors, barangay captains and councils. Is that not the public? What we do not have as yet are a few senators who have sided with Senate President Franklin Drilon. That is what is holding the conversion of Congress into a constituent assembly.
The
people are not being told that by pushing for constitutional convention Senator Drilon is really postponing constitutional reform until 2010 or not at all, at the same time that he admits it is urgently needed by the country. So who is not consulting the
public? Does the public good even come into the picture in Drilon’s political scenario? I wonder.
If he is really sincere about
consulting the public, the first thing he should do is to stop using his office as Senate president to stand in the way of constitutional reform at the earliest possible time. Invite the public to proceedings of the constituent assembly so they can see and hear for themselves. Better still televise the proceedings. Granted that by
people he means at least some of the people, those who understand constitutional reform, why does he not use the awesome power and budget of his office as Senate president to inform the public of the consequences of the postponement of constitutional change? But no. He speaks of the "lack of time" at the same time that he uses his office and the signatures of 13 senators early on in the debate to block any attempt to push for constituent assembly.
The crux of the battle is between the House which voted overwhelmingly for constituent assembly – 134-13 – plus 1.2 million LGUs governors, mayors, municipal mayors and barangay captains, NGOs vs. Drilon and Co., whoever among the 13 refuses to budge from that unfortunate early position. I say "whoever among the 13" because I know that some of the 13 have already changed their minds.
Senator Drilon makes other statements that have no grounding in reality. What does he mean when he says, "What will be offered to the people may be constitutional amendments done in haste or through political machination – and this is certainly unacceptable." I would like to tackle each of the assumptions contained in that statement. He assumes that the initiative for constitutional reform does not come from the people. If he had paid more attention he might have gathered that
people were behind the initiative for constitutional reform not only now but many years ago. On this,
distinctions will have to be made. If he means the more intelligent and politically committed sections of the populace, then it might help if he referred to a social contract signed last May 14 by
people and members of the House. Admittedly that is not the entire populace. But then there are sections of the populace that will never be concerned about the
constitution or
constitutional change. That does not mean they are against it especially if it is explained in terms relevant to them. What concerns them is government that can change their lives for the better. That means food on the table, jobs and education of their children. That has not happened in a meaningful way with the present presidential system.
The political changes being proposed were certainly not done in haste. It can be argued that parliamentary federal government has been advocated by Filipinos since 1898, discussed and debated in two constitutional conventions, had not colonizers – both foreign and local – intervened. He says there will be no time for public consultation but has he made any effort to find out what members of the House or NGOs have done in the past year or years in some cases? It is unfair for him to say no consultations have been made when others have made a yeoman’s effort to do so. Can he say the same thing for himself?
Moreover to pursue his line of reasoning, was there ever a time when the people – if he means the Filipino masses ever consulted – on anything gravely political? The closest consultation in which they participate is during elections and unhappily they do not discuss, they sell their vote. Indeed, what public consultation took place in the making of the 1987 Constitution that he insists should not be amended ‘in haste’ forgetting it had been cobbled in four months. Moreover, a survey by Pulse Asia confirmed that six months after the people overwhelmingly ratified that Constitution, more than two-thirds did not know why they did.
That is precisely what is at the heart of constitutional change now. As far as the
masa are concerned if constitutional reform will give them a new lease of life, faster legislation and implementation of projects for their basic needs, good governance, they would be for it. It is not constitutional change per se that they understand or wish to understand but what constitutional change will bring about in their lives. The trouble is that the benefits of changing the system will only happen after change. Our lawmakers know this but continue to use appeals to
democracy, debate, discussion with a phantom public knowing fully well that in a society with teeming political illiterates, this does not happen. There is a word for this attitude – cynicism. Lastly, I would have expected Senator Drilon to know better the Filipino experience on constitutional conventions. He says "Once elected, delegates will be in charge of amending the charter.’ In theory, it sounds good. But not in practice.
We have had two constitutional conventions, once in 1935 and again in 1971. Both were unable to deliver the form of government or reforms desired by the
people. I do not know how much consultation with the public took place then but I certainly know that some elected delegates to the 1971 botched their job and were paid twice – once by the people’s taxes and a second time from the graft of Marcos’ kitty, to frustrate the reforms that were intended then. It is not
election of delegates that will ensure the passage of the constitutional reforms but the political will of our leaders, Mr. Drilon included. If those of us in civil society have latched on to constituent assembly mode it is because we want to make sure it is done this time. Constitutional reformists, "people’ have signed a social contract limiting the reforms to specific provisions that binds members of Congress. Let’s stick to those amendments under the obligation of a contract and get on with it for the sake of the country. Drilon himself has conceded that it is cheaper on the taxpayers’ pocket, and quicker to complete by beginning the process of converting both chambers of Congress into a constitutent assembly
now. * * * A clamor does not need to be a mob. Lastly, ordinary Filipinos are well-advised not to allow themselves to be used by vested interests, whether religious, political or economic in promoting political retrogression inimical to their own interest. Time and time again, reactionary elements in Filipino society have used mindless mobs to oppose much needed reforms to move this country forward. That is the reason for the backwardness of this country. The irony is that the real victims of the country’s backwardness are the very same ordinary Filipinos being bused into mindless shows of force. The backwardness of this country will go on and on because the levers of power are in the hands of these reactionary elements, and that includes the resources to gather rent-a-mob crowds, even if they are in the thousands as predicted. Intelligent dissent need not come from a mob. That is what we are trying to do in the Coalition for Constitutional Reform Now. By using the constituent assembly mode, we strengthen the institution of reprsentative government.
There was a specificity to EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 but this does not translate to "gathering crowds as sound principle for political action." EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 were precisely resorted to because political institutions were not working. The task is to make them work and one way is to change the political framework that should make gatheirng crowds unnecessary. EDSA 2 should not have happened if the proper reforms were carried out after EDSA 1. Good citizenship among the masses will not happen overnight but those of us who know better should not take advantage of the vulnerability of the desperate poor. We must all work together so that ordinary Filipinos finally awaken and realize that their well-being rests on themselves and their capacity to understand the responsibilities of what it takes to be citizens and what to expect from leaders in a democratic society. The sober discussion of issues, the intelligent use of their vote, monitoring projects from start to finish, vigilance for good government are among some of their more important responsibilities. It does not include blind following of demagogues of whatever stripe.
E-mail:
cpedrosa@edsamail.com.ph