Not that the senators are convinced that Constitutional changes are necessary, particularly in this season of political turbulence. Much less are they savoring the virtual certainty of their abolition. Allegations of hidden agendas, especially on the part of GMA, persist.
The senators’ concurrence appears to be recognition that the momentum of Con-Ass is irreversible. On the matter of costs, the figures, literally billions vs. millions, are overwhelmingly in favor of Con-Ass. In terms of time, no one disputes that charter changes would take a longer gestation period if the Con-Con route is taken.
Besides, whatever the motives of the Executive and the House of Representatives, the pressure is undeniable, not only from the President and the congressmen, but from the people as a whole. The arguments still raging out there are largely over specific proposals for charter change, such as federalism, not on the need for such change.
There is a school of thought which argues that instead of systemic changes, such as a switch to the parliamentary system of government, we should opt for reforms in the present system. For example, it is contended that delays in the passage of laws or the problem of political butterflies can be addressed by appropriate legislation. The huge costs of elections, particularly for national offices, can be rationalized by campaign financing laws. There should be sweeping electoral reforms.
However, there is prevailing doubt about the ultimate efficacy of these "reform" measures, considering our track record with anything that involves working within an existing system as we try to change that system fundamentally. Resistance and inertia tend to wear down, and eventually frustrate, even the most fervent crusaders.
Those urging charter change appear to be winning only because of sheer number, or by a strategy of ramming reform down people’s throats. Most of the arguments against a parliamentary system have not been adequately ventilated. Instead of an open debate on the pros and cons, the notion that a parliamentary form of government is an unqualified good seems to have been widely deemed to be a given. Recently, GMA’s consultative commission of over 50 luminaries reached a "tentative consensus" in favor of a parliamentary system, with only 7 hardy souls dissenting.
Well, it ain’t a given. There is, I think, the very serious objection that a parliament will simply be the same dog with a different collar. The assumption that a parliament will suddenly produce an assemblage of principled, idealistic legislators who will be driven only by a burning fervor to work for the general welfare and the genuine national interest is naïve, deceptive and simply false.
In all likelihood, this argument says, local kingpins and their families or proxies will continue to dominate parliamentary constituencies. Dynasties will entrench themselves even more. One of the plans for the new parliament is to increase the number of its members by splitting up voting districts. The idea is to make seats in the Parliament less costly to vie for and, hence, more available to qualified but less financially strapped candidates. At first blush, this is a noble and salutary goal.
However, this approach could have the opposite effect of allowing political clans to accumulate seats in the new parliament. Dad can run in one constituency in the same province or region, Mom in another, Jr. in yet another. Tito Boy can run here and Tita Girlie there. And it will probably cost about the same, because of roughly the same territorial coverage. Clearly, this possibility is not far-fetched.
The other familiar objection is that we do not have a well-developed party system in this country. Political parties do not represent a firm commitment to a clear philosophy of government and a resulting program of action. Many in the Liberal Party are not liberals at all. Many in the Nacionalista Party can by no stretch of the imagination be considered nationalists. Denominating groups as "Democratic" or "Progressive" is meaningless at best, and blatantly fraudulent at worst.
Lakas, the largest political party, is the epitome of an alliance founded on political convenience. Its membership changes constantly, depending on the direction the political winds blow. Its platform does not go beyond motherhood statements and pious declarations. It talks issues, but its action is driven by politics as usual.
The suggestion that our political parties are merely vehicles for temporary, and essentially brittle, alliances entered into mainly for political convenience or survival is well taken. There is no such thing as party discipline. Defections and splinter factions are dime a dozen, and are explicable in terms of short or long-term political gain.
Differences over policy and program initiatives of the incumbent Executive routinely occur even within the same political party, ostensibly on grounds of principle, but actually because of quarrels over spoils, internal leadership disputes or a divergence of perceived political futures. In these circumstances, debates in a new parliament would not reflect alternative political ideologies or differing action agendas based on a philosophy of governance which the electorate chose through the ballot.
In the end, we would wind up with basically the same kind of legislature we have today, except we would have only one legislative body to kick around. Without the checks and balances inherent in a bicameral legislature, a dominant political party or ruling coalition would likely sacrifice healthy debate in the name of speeding up passage of the government’s legislative program. The result could well be poorly-crafted laws vulnerable to judicial attack and invalidation.
This is just one example of a contentious issue. There is also federalism, which is arguably a bigger can of worms. The fact is that the imminence of charter changes, whether the Senate adopts a combative or conciliatory posture, still goes way over the heads of much of the public.
Even those who agree that basic changes in our political system are necessary fret that the process has been preempted by politicians. The same imperatives that have paralyzed the country are once again at center stage. Chacha has been reduced to another frivolous contest in one-upmanship between the House and the Senate. We need more sober, rational and unifying voices to get us back on the right track.