At last, an issue to fight for

So, both candidates are looking into charter change if elected. President GMA made a strong pitch and said ‘she was willing to be a transitional president and oversee the country’s shift to a parliamentary federal government.’ Not to be outdone, FPJ also claimed his government ‘would review the possibility’of amending the Constitution to switch to parliamentary federal. Despite the statements, both candidates cannot be said to be committed to constitutional reform although Speaker JDV says it would be more likely to happen under President GMA. When I met her by chance at the Haven, a project of congressional spouses for street children, she said, "O, it is part of my platform na." So will it happen? Will we shift to parliamentary federal government? As things stand now, I am pessimistic. A change that would restructure government will have its losers and none bigger than the candidate who wins the presidency. That’s the reality. Yet people who understand the problems of this country know it will not be solved under the present system. No matter how good the elected president, his or her reforms will be unraveled in the next in a system where money and popularity are the standards for winning.

More than words are needed. Sen. Edgardo Angara, once a champion for constitutional reform at the earliest possible time (lest we keep going in circles he said to me in an interview) has since turned his back on it, to be the principal sponsor of FPJ. Why he reneged is anybody’s guess. It may be yet another power struggle between the administration and the opposition on who presides over the shift. It is well-known that Angara wants to be prime minister. But so do a lot of others – GMA herself, JDV, Danding Cojuangco and even the aging Juan Ponce Enrile. It is not ambition that should be questioned but the framework in which that ambition is realized. For one, a know-nothing actor will not make the grade. A parliament may be small but there will be a better chance for measuring leadership qualities of the candidates. I know many who fear that money can be used to buy off MPs. But is that not being done now and with more disastrous results like having a know-nothing actor for president? The demands of leadership in a Parliament are so stringent, the arena for battle will improve. At least the contest will be relevant to governance. FPJ cannot refuse to debate because a Prime Minister will have to defend every act he commits for the country.

Senator Angara understood the difficulties constitutional reform will have to face after the May elections. There will be a new set of government officials who will be reluctant to give up their posts. He proposed a referendum in which the people will vote to end all terms by 2007. Then we have something to work on – the force of democratic law – to ensure it will be carried out. The administration and opposition will be on an equal footing. We all begin again. I regret Senator Angara did not seize the opportunity to make a name for himself in history, had he pursued his idea. Instead he opted to be like any cheap politician, win the May elections by hook or by crook. But it is too late. Angara, as well as all of us, missed the boat.

So what are we to do? Is there still a chance for constitutional reform whoever wins this election? Gen. Fortunato Abat proposes to go straight for the election of members of parliament. The problem with the Abat proposal is it may have to resort to military force to get this done and that can be dangerous. Moreover, it is inconsistent with strengthening our democratic institutions. Still, Abat’s proposal cannot be discounted. It may be a last card. But there is another way short of military strength that can resolve our political dilemma. It is in the hands of local authorities – governors, mayors, barangay captains, the true backbone of electoral politics if they want to. The diffusion of power, away from an elitist national government, by parliamentary federal favors them and their constituents. They should use this weapon in May and serve notice to national candidates that unless they have more than just words they will not have their vote. This may be a shot in the dark but it is a democratic option. How it is handled is up to local authority. It is but a thin ray of hope but one we must seize it or we lose our way again in the jungle of politics as we have known it. This is an issue worth fighting for.

Presidential bets on parliamentary government. Both Cecile and Sonny Alvarez are friends from the struggle against Marcos and their picture on the front page and Cecile’s illness were moving. It moved me perhaps differently from other friends. I know that both Sonny and Cecile are fighters but I do not believe politics is the only worthy battle in life. Still, I pay tribute to their sacrifices. Just a day before, he sent a statement ‘urging all opposition presidential candidates to take up the challenge of President Arroyo that if she won in the May 10 elections, she would be willing to serve as "transition president" to oversee the country’s shift to a parliamentary system. He regretted the current political campaign has so far dealt only with non-essential issues. It was time to discuss vital issues that will have a lasting impact on the lives of Filipinos, he said.

I was reading Perspectives on Constitutional Reform from former Prime Minister Cesar Virata (thank you from Bert and me) when I was invited by Karen Kelley of the US Embassy to meet Henry F. Carey, a political professor from Atlanta with strong feelings against constitutional reform in the Philippines. At the same time that he acknowledged the parliamentary system was superior to the presidential system – if and it is a big if – he added, there are strong political parties. Well, we did have strong political parties before martial law. And when he asked if there was any party in the Philippines today that has lasted more than five years, I replied without hesitation: Lakas CMD. It has its flaws but the party tries hard to have policies consistent with its platform. In time, the desired strong parties in a parliament will evolve. That exchange drew me back to the book published by the Cavite Historical Society. It reminds us Filipinos have been debating parliamentary and presidential systems as far back as the Malolos Republic.Carey’s perspective (being American) did not quite reach that original Filipino impulse at the end of a victorious war of independence. Filipinos were for parliamentary federal even if it was not said in those terms. O.D. Corpuz wrote the chapter on A Modern Constitution for a Filipino Republic that could be a beacon for us still undecided about parliamentary federal as envisioned by our heroic forefathers. Brilliant Filipinos debated between strong legislature (parliament) or strong executive (presidential). The debate was cut short by the arrival of Americans and their subsequent insistence on the presidential, a model of their own government. But less appreciated, the system they enforced lent to easier colonization of the country. It is still true today.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]