Teves amends the Constitution

Negros Oriental Rep. Herminio Teves is usually fair and makes useful suggestions on good governance. But this time he is off the mark by calling for a plebiscite BEFORE amending the Constitution. This is not only cynical, it is also unconstitutional.The 1987 Constitution is quite clear, there are three ways to amend the Constitution: by constitutional convention, by constituent assembly, or by people’s initiative. That constitution was overwhelmingly ratified by referendum. That ratification was a social contract between the people and the government. So what is Teves about if he is now asking the people to vote on something they had already ratified. Does he not respect that Constitution?

The main problem of our democratic system is that we don’t have a politically aware citizenry. People follow what their leaders tell them yet we pretend it is democratic. In 1987, the Constitution was ratified because they supported Cory against Marcos, hence it's often called the Cory Constitution. Today that Constitution has been shown to be inadequate to push the country forward in the face of a very competitive economic world. This is recognized by our leaders who understand the way the world economy functions and why the system is not equipped to cope. Some have come out openly that: the Constitution needs to be amended to put the country in step with the times. But they face a two-pronged opposition which is formidable: a generally ignorant constituency and selfish stakeholders of the status quo. That lethal combination is seemingly impregnable fortress against change. There is little we can do with the stakeholders who want to retain their power and position. They will understandably find every excuse and there will be many, not to change the status quo which could unravel their hold on the country. I would put the Teves call for a plebiscite in that category. It uses the notion of ‘people’ to preserve what favors the elite. That is what makes it cynical. This cynicism is so pervasive in our leadership, I have lost hope that this wall can ever be removed.

So we turn now to the constituency, the generally politically unaware citizenry, the masa. They may be politically unaware but they can be made aware that the present system, a unitary bicameral presidential system is the very source of the corruption they deplore and what makes the government unable to provide, what after all are their main concerns – jobs, food on the table and the education of their children. When you have to spend enormous sums of money to be elected, corruption is not far behind. It is built in the system. Then you have a legislature which moves like a turtle. Indeed, a very frank senator told me he will not vote for constituent assembly. If ever there should be amendments it should be done later, not now when his return on investment is not yet enough. So the message must get to the people that a change in the system is in their favor. And the choices are narrowing down to amendment by constituent assembly as the government founders on its fiscal reform program.

If it is in the interest of the country that it is done by constituent assembly, then Congress must make sure this is what is done. To overcome the lack of trust in Congress, it would be desirable to put together a strong, patriotic civilian component to sit along with members of Congress in the making of the draft as the Thais did. When the draft has been voted upon by the Constituent Assembly it then goes to the people for their ratification by referendum. That is what the Constitution says about amendments. What Teves proposes is to kill constitutional reform as a notion rather than go through the process itself. Otherwise by what law will the plebiscite come under? No Mr. Teves, your proposal is unconstitutional. If your desire to inform the people were truly serious then Congress should provide the funds for a barnstorming information campaign so they are adequately informed on the draft amendments before voting in a referendum.

If you ask me, saying it is all it needs and all that will be done. By simply suggesting that we have a plebiscite first before we amend the Constitution effectively kills the initiative. Oo, nga naman. See them lap it up. In all other law-abiding countries, with more responsible leadership, a constituent assembly is resorted to for quick and cost-effective reforms. This is not possible in the Philippines when the very stakeholders of the present system are those with the power to initiate change. Granted that there is a lack of trust in the legislature so why do we persist in it? The same masa votes congressmen and senators in and out of office and then say they cannot be trusted? Give me a break. To overcome this lack of trust, I would think that we ought to focus in ensuring that draft amendments are strictly monitored by a strong patriotic civic component which in any case will be subject to a referendum or the articulation of the people’s will. Unless of course we do not trust the people, right Mr. Teves?

* * *

HOSTING THE IPU AT THIS TIME. Nothing could have been more ill-timed. At any other time it might have been great for the Philippines to host the Interparliamentary Union meeting. But after a 2 notch downgrade by Moody’s, outbreaks of terrorism in several cities and economic reform bills languishing in the Senate, it is unfortunately inopportune. Everything is wrong about it. The Senate, which had been expected to help the President’s economic fiscal reform program by passing the bills on time is dragging its feet and saying they ‘do not microwave bills’. The fact is the government is ill-structured for rush fiscal reforms even if it wanted to. However well-intentioned the senators might be, the fact is bills go through a wasteful repetitive process three times under the present system. We cannot blame the senators for that but if the senators do not want that tedium corrected then something is wrong. Surely something can be done to avoid the waste of time. How about constitutional change? No wonder Moody’s gave us a 2-notch downgrade.. I don’t know how and why the Philippines was selected to be the venue of the IPU meeting in the PICC. It would be interesting to find out why the Philippines was chosen as the venue at this time. We will welcome the more than 1,000 delegates who will attend the meeting but there is a nagging suspicion that there is more than meets the eye in this propaganda coup for the Senate. That suspicion is reinforced by the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary economic bills. I’ll admit it is good propaganda for the Senate. As Sen. Franklin Drilon says the IPU assembly would be a "historic first" for the Philippines. The opportunity to host the IPU assembly comes only once every 100 years or more he crows and then compares it to the 4th Asia-Pacific Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit meeting held in 1996 which was attended by heads of state from 21 member countries. Why is he making the comparison? I am mystified at the claim that it would be ‘a significant move to spread democracy around the world and highlight the Philippines as a vanguard of democracy in Asia?’ How?

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]