Constitutional reform as a unifying force

It may seem that the political situation in the Philippines has nothing to do with the country’s national hero, Jose Rizal whose birthday we celebrate today. But it has and much more relevant than we care to admit. Somehow, the ideas of Rizal, among them the spirit of free thought and inquiry imbibed during the heyday of republican Spain in mid-19th century in Madrid and rationalism in Europe did not take root in the Filipino mind as he had wished. Instead Filipinos believe that their national hero, at the time of his death reneged on everything he had lived for making a mockery of his martyrdom. He may have lost his life but Filipinos lost much more. The question of nation, as envisioned by our heroes, was cut off from its roots. Without roots we were doomed to the caprices and forces from inside and outside the country. If we are to be one nation we must return to those roots. We can reclaim our greatness as a people who set up the first free republic in this part of the world.

It is in this spirit of return to the original intent of the founders of our republic that we ought to consider constitutional reform. That may be the key to unity and one we can agree upon. After all, we are all heirs to that past. It may be a paradox but the only the past can united and move us forward.

I am saddened that Rep. Herminio Teves, who has sponsored some very thoughtful bills, should propose a plebiscite before charter change. This is another subterfuge. Like the debate between constituent assembly or constitutional convention, it is just a way to stop constitutional reform. He does not seem to understand that constituent assembly for constitutional reform is one of the the essential functions of Congress. The Malolos Congress was a constituent assembly. The men who gathered there did not ask whether they should promulgate a constitution. It was an imperative. Had these men been short of vision, and said let us get the opinion of Fiipinos first, there would never have been a Filipino nation.

Under representative government, the people pay officials to run the country, as they do Congress to carry out functions they are unable to do themselves. But if Congress says we have to have a plebiscite first, then what are we paying them for? The sovereign will of the people comes with their final imprimatur after amendments have been proposed. That is the time for a referendum, not before. The cases, Teves cites, when the people rejected amendments, is par for the course. To paraphrase a saying, Congress proposes, the sovereign people disposes.

In fact what Mr. Teves is proposing violates the Constitution which requires a referendum to ratify the amendments after, not before. By suggesting a referendum before, he is promoting division so reform is never done. "Not only will we divide the people unnecessarily, it will be yet another expense the country can ill afford," says Speaker Jose de Venecia. It also means that we will waste yet another year to tackle the country’s pressing problems which is now on the brink of bankruptcy thanks to this dilly-dallying Congress. We deserve the insult that what we have is not democracy but ‘demo-crazy.’ In any case holding a plebiscite will not include some 50 to 60 percent of the nation or 30-40 million people. What could be more undemocratic? Three major groups have already made surveys all of which favor constitutional change. The nightmare we are undergoing of an elections still unresolved more than a month later could have been avoided. At the time when we could have done so with least pain and delay to the country, the selfish Drilon-led Senate did not support charter change. He has no business calling the Opposition to task for the canvass delay when the Senate under his leadership did the same thing with charter change. They display feathers like proud peacocks when they should bury their heads in shame for bringing more catastrophe to the nation.

This nation cannot be governed with the post-elections bitterness. Indeed, even if President GMA is proclaimed and she will be proclaimed, more and more people realize that constitutional reform is the only option for political coherence and peace. Its chief proponent, Jose de Venecia Jr. should get all-party support once the 13th Congress formally opens on July 26 and when a resolution is filed to convene Congress into a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution. This will be the way out, a face-saving mechanism for some very staunch members of the Opposition, unable to accept defeat at the polls. In this challenge, there will be little room for actors, basketball players, comedians and broadcasters. It will be a serious debate. Only the best, the most learned and the most patriotic both from the government and the opposition will have something to offer to the nation.

* * *

Imelda wants bio showing stopped? I wonder why Imelda Marcos should want her bio-film showing stopped. The film is intended to rehabilitate her. And it is not just the Sundance film that was planned. I declined to participate in any interview with the producers for this reason. Curiously, at the time the filmaker approached me for an interview, two other outfits, one a television station in the US and another a Japanese also did. It seemed orchestrated. I don’t know whatever happened to the other two outfits but they never came back after I turned them down nor do I know what happened to their projects. But not the Imelda bio-showing that the former First Lady wishes to project as controversial. Is this a way to promote controversy and elicit support from the public for the film? When a movie-documentary, book or anything at all is preceded by an award, I run for the red flag.

This is a time for caution. My lawyers wrote the filmaker that the use of my book is subject to copyright. The ‘award-winning’ filmmaker herself wrote in a letter to me that ‘most of the material for the film came from my book’. So would I be part of the film? My firm answer was no. If Imelda Marcos is to be rehabilitated, she must come clean on what exactly happened during her husband’s rule. She is right when she says that there are many people out there who were part of it and enjoyed the fruits of Marcos’ plunder of the nation. Why have they been allowed to flourish? If that were the case, I might have agreed. But there is none of that. Indeed, I had hoped that as her original biographer, I might be able to review her role, if before she dies, she were to give the nation the truth. Imelda collaborated with the filmmaker and she knew exactly what it was for - to rehabilitate her image. It is not true that she had not seen the filmmaker for a decade. It was sometime, (certainly not ten years) perhaps last year or so when the filmmaker flew to Manila for the final interviews. I have the letters both from myself and my lawyers. Please naman, Imelda, there can be no controversy for a biography that was made with your help even if the maker is award-winning.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]