An endangered species?

It isn’t all that surprising, I suppose, that among the loudest voices against charter change are those of our Senators. The call for a parliamentary, federal form of government does threaten the very existence of the Senate as a co-equal branch of the legislature.

Thus far, the reported reactions of some Senators seem like the perfectly understandable, but nevertheless somewhat panicky, defense mechanisms of cornered wild animals. Cha-cha advocates, for instance, are advised to kiss their dreams goodbye and not waste precious time needed to address the country’s problems. One Senator pooh-poohs cha-cha as "doomed" and likens the effort to "a quickie movie with a lousy script that will surely bomb in the box office."

Others try to sound more, well, senatorial. Charter change, they intone, is not the solution and diverts the country from the real problem which is corruption at all levels of government, excluding – do I understand this correctly? – the Senate itself. Moreover, what is really needed is a change in people. A parliament, populated by the same people, will be just as corrupt, just as immoral.

We cannot, of course, blame the Senators for taking offense at the clear inference in the move towards unicameralism that the Senate is among the principal causes of legislative gridlock and executive paralysis. Senators, by virtue of their election at large, think of themselves as true representatives and advocates of a national constituency, as opposed to the narrow partisan, regional or sectoral concerns of congressmen.

Others think, however, that the utility of the Senate as the more national interest-oriented body is grossly overrated, that its obstructionism is a chronic condition and that, at the very least, it is a luxury which the country can ill afford. In other words, they feel the nation would not miss a beat if a body whose members think of themselves as Presidents-in-waiting were to disappear overnight.

Let’s try to put a sense of perspective in this debate which, though civil on the surface, occasionally threatens to degenerate into the ugly scenes we sometimes see in some of the more rambunctious parliamentary bodies in Asia.

To start with, let’s agree that the dispute over whether cha-cha will be achieved by a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention presents legitimate issues which need to be addressed soberly. The Senate argues that a constituent assembly would require a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress and that to get 18 Senators to concur would be impossible.

Some congressmen, on the other hand, insist that Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress, but no longer requires that each House should vote separately. Under this theory, a three-fourths vote of the entire Congress, meaning the sum of all Senators and Representatives, would suffice to call a constituent assembly. However, constitutional lawyer Rev. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ. opines that "what is essential, is that both Houses vote separately" since "the power to propose amendments is given not to a unicameral body but to a bicameral body."

The House of Representatives would be courting a constitutional crisis if it tried to go it alone and, in effect, exclude the Senate. On the other hand, the issues of how quickly the charter changes can be put in place, and the financial cost of the enterprise, have gained new and greater relevance.

In terms of the financial burden, Senator Ed Angara says a constituent assembly would cost P900 million, and a constitutional convention P9 billion. If his estimate is correct, the difference would be over P8 billion, which is obviously a material consideration. While most might, as a general proposition, be inclined towards a convention, and would even argue that amending the Constitution is serious enough business to override the monetary cost, the stark reality is that at a time of stubborn budget deficits, P8 billion is not a paltry sum. That’s assuming the government has that kind of money, which is at best arguable.

Even assuming the money was available, think of what P8 billion would buy in terms of vital infrastructure, essential health services, the enhancement of basic educational facilities and, yes, even AFP modernization. And by the way, P8 billion more or less is the amount reflected in a separate national budget account for proceeds from the disposition of Fort Bonifacio. The amount is theoretical, though, an accounting entry which doesn’t represent the actual cash available for disposition for AFP modernization and other statutory purposes.

The point is, sure, there seems to be a consensus that fundamental change is necessary in our Constitution. And while those tired shibboleths about fighting corruption and enforcing the law may still be basically true, it is the system itself, apart from insincere and incompetent successive administrations, that stands as a formidable obstacle to reform.

But as responsible citizens and as stewards for future generations of Filipinos, we must now seriously consider the methods and costs of effecting change. In addition, it really is unfortunate that the call for systemic change comes at a time of acute political crisis for the incumbent President. But no one is saying that she should be in any way immune from accountability, even as charter change is in process.

It is a fallacy to say, for instance, that the processes of impeachment and charter change, whatever the method chosen, are mutually exclusive. Yes, it will require historic dedication and hard work on the part of the legislature. While I realize that the record may at this time not bear witness to the hard work or dedication of the legislature as a whole – for one, just look at records of attendance at sessions and committee hearings – I refuse to believe that Congress is incapable of meeting the challenge.

Former President Fidel V. Ramos is right. Impeachments and truth commissions will not solve the country’s fundamental problems of poverty and political instability. Some Senators debunk cha-cha as the solution to age-old problems of corruption and government ineffectiveness. They should realize that they are also pointing accusatory fingers at themselves. They are, after all, an integral part of that flawed system.