The ghost of Bucaram

Sometime before Erap’s ouster, I wrote a column on the uncanny similarities between the political situations in the Philippines and Ecuador. Ecuador’s citizens removed Bucaram, a populist president who won on the backs of the poor. Like Erap, Bucaram was an actor-comedian but he did not have a clue on how to govern and his administration lurched from one disaster to another.

The temptation to remove him became so overwhelming, Ecuadorans looked for a way that would be swift and bloodless. The verdict was to use an institution — Congress — which would vote to remove him after a one day strike to symbolize nationwide discontent. Bucaram had allies in Congress and rather than go through a protracted mess to persuade them to go along, the military was called in ‘not as in a coup’ but as an overseer with clout to enable the strategists to combine legal as well as extralegal means for the enterprise. Much later, I met some of those Ecuadorans by chance in an international conference. They confirmed that was how Bucaram was removed but whispered this could not have been done without Papa Sam’s approval so the line to Washington was kept open.

Well, another Ecuadoran President, this time Lucio Gutierrez has suffered the same fate as Bucaram with Alfredo Palacio, the vice president taking over. He is poised to be president for the rest of the remaining term of Gutierrez. Off hand, Washington does not seem to agree and wants early elections as a way to end the crisis. The Organization of American States will also discuss whether Congress had a right to oust the president of Ecuador. Still, US officials were cautious when asked about recognizing the new government, but said ‘they were working with Quito authorities to help ensure a constitutional solution.’

Street protests erupted in Quito when the Supreme Court dropped corruption charges against former President Abdala Bucaram, who is said to be a key political ally of Gutierrez. Again, we have a parallel comparison with the courts dragging the plunder trial of Erap and a widespread belief that in time he will be acquitted or at least given a slap on the wrist at the worst. I do not think Filipinos will run to the streets if Erap is acquitted.

Habit or not, removing presidents through angry mobs is not only dangerous but debilitating to the country concerned. Neither does it effectively address incompetent government. Maybe, there will be a flurry of activity after change of leadership but without a proper structure for reform it has no way to go but back to square 1.

That was why the 1987 Constitution in the Philippines added a third method for constitutional reform through people’s initiative so that its citizens would have an outlet to change the Constitution (effectively change leadership in cases) without having to go to the streets. Unfortunately, the Constitution left the matter to Congress once again. The Supreme Court went along with the fiction that people’s initiative could not be exercised without Congress working out its mechanics. The COMELEC at the time disagreed. If it was the constitutional body to oversee elections then it was up to it to work out the mechanics, not Congress.

Since 1987 when that Constitution was ratified, Congress has not moved to make people’s initiative possible. With Filipinos tired and wary of EDSAs, constitutional reform may be the way out for those who sincerely want reforms. Here we depart from comparing the two countries. Whereas Ecuador seeks constitutional reform to end the crisis, in the Philippines, it would forestall a crisis. The call for constitutional reform now is a pre-emption before the screws are tightened and events run out of control.

* * *

It comes as no surprise that there will be no airport opening on June 21. From the time the MIAA first made the announcement months back those who understood what was happening knew that. There were both legal and technical difficulties that airport officials kept from the public (some think, President GMA as well) and wished to ignore. While the government must be commended in its efforts to open the airport once and for all, it failed to address the fundamentals. Expropriation would have been the answer if it had also worked out the legal and technical kinks.

Many are wondering why a compromise solution could not have been worked out between PIATCO-FRAPORT, Takenaka and the government. That would have been the easiest and fastest way to resolve the issue. Having expropriated the airport, the government would have been in a strong bargaining position and should have used it to get the parties concede to the points of compromise. Had a compromise formula been achieved it would have solved not only the legal problems but the technical ones as well. As one reliable airline official told me, even if all the legal problems were threshed out the technical aspects would still remain a headache to those who would operate the airport. The MIAA would not have the competence for running the modern airport so we will just see a repeat of the old NAIA 1 which seems a marketplace for dozens of vested interests all wanting to make a fast buck. "It will just be called NAIA3, new and bigger but it will be the same as NAIA 1, the source added.

Airlines have resisted moving to NAIA3 even under pressure from the MIAA because they have to answer to their principals. PIATCO-FRAPORT has already warned they will haul to court any attempt to disobey the ruling of the Pasay Regional Court Judge Henrick Gingoyon which bars the government from exercising ‘acts of ownership’ such as concession agreements.

More serious allegations have been bruited about that the government is perhaps being led to the end of the line when there would be no other recourse but to turn over the NAIA3 to another private group. Unfortunately, the public once again is being kept in the dark. This will not solve the problem. According to sources, this private group does not have the capability of the PIATCO-FRAPORT-TAKENAKA consortium. They may have been at odds at one point or another but the triumvirate acting as one could have operated the airport if the government came across with the compromise formula. The legal questions will also remain. Sooner or later, the international court of arbitration and settlements will hand down its decision. The consequences could be dire. Some airlines officials had wanted to talk to President GMA themselves because they felt she was not being told the truth. Is there still time? Or are we just being led on to a catastrophic end of this imbroglio that has already cost millions, even billions of lost revenue and puts the country to shame.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]