Amend, not revise, the Charter

(Part 2)

Another necessary electoral reform that will synchronize and lessen the frequency of the elections in this country and give equal access to opportunities for public service is the amendment of the term of office of all elective public officials from the President down to the Barangay Captain. Their terms of office should be fixed at four years with reelection for another four years or a maximum of eight consecutive years. In other words the longest period that elective public officials can stay in office is only for eight consecutive years. They can run for the same office again only after an interruption in their eighth consecutive year of service, to give a chance to others to vie for their positions. With respect to the President and Vice President however, they shall not be eligible for any further reelection after serving the maximum term of eight consecutive years. The synchronization and four-year term can start after the 2010 elections.

The greater debate centers on the shift in the form of government from the present presidential system to the proposed parliamentary system. Given the many unpleasant and detrimental experiences under the present presidential system because of "poisoned politics", the parliamentary system really looks more attractive. It definitely promotes more efficiency in governance and work outputs and less cost in terms of time spent and budgetary expenditures as there is a merger of the executive and legislative departments. Besides, it seems to be a promising cure to our prevailing politics of personality because of its essential features engendering strong political parties that are based on politics of principle. But such an important change should not be done hurriedly and impetuously. Apples look delicious but before taking a bite we have to be sure it is not poisonous.

As mentioned in the first part of A Law Each Day Philippine STAR, January 30, 2006, we have to start first with mere amendments to our Constitution specifically ensuring that the right of suffrage is exercised for the best interest of the country and its people, like fixing higher qualifications for both voters and candidates, eliminating political dynasties, and providing equal opportunities for public service. Another possible amendment that can be made as a first stage in the shift to parliamentary system is to abolish the two houses of Congress and in their stead, create a unicameral national assembly. In this proposed set up, the present presidential system with three separate and independent legislative, executive and judicial branches of government operating under the same principle of checks and balances, will be retained. The only change is in the composition of the legislative branch. There is no more Senate and House of Representatives. There will only be one National Assembly that will perform the legislative functions. This is the same legislative body that will eventually become the "Parliament" in case the shift to the parliamentary system is proven to be really imperative. A unicameral body will equally achieve more efficiency and less cost in the performance of legislative function as it eliminates the existing duplicity of work by the Senate and the Lower House. It will provide a smooth transition from the presidential to the parliamentary form of government.

The National Assembly will be composed of elected representatives from the Metropolitan Manila area and the twelve regions of the country. The apportionment of the number of representatives per region shall be in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants at the proportion of say, at least one million for one assemblyman. The party list system shall be abolished. The first election for National Assemblymen will be held in 2007 only for a term of three years. On 2010, if the parliamentary system is adopted, the election will be for members of parliament with the same apportionment. The incumbent assemblymen elected in 2007 cannot run for reelection any more, to give an entirely new face to the parliament.

Finally, amendments of some sections of Article XII on "National Economy and Patrimony" may likewise be made in keeping with the globalization trend, like allowing foreign ownership of lands, exploitation of natural resources and operation of certain businesses subject to certain conditions and limitations. The superfluous sections in this Article containing general declarations and "motherhood statements" should be eliminated. They are already deemed written in the basic law like some other declarations of general principles in other parts of this charter which may also be deleted.

Looking at a plebiscite this coming June 2006 and implementation by 2007 elections, the charter change should consist only of the foregoing amendments of some articles. Such amendments could easily be explained and absorbed by the electorate within the said timetable. If the charter change will consist of an all encompassing revision, time pressure does not provide for sufficient education and information of the electorate to enable them to arrive at an intelligent and judicious decision. Revising the entire Constitution, especially changing the form and structure of the government, needs more time and study to ensure that the changes are the people’s choices rather than the politician’s wishes. Such change may be more feasible by year 2010. By that time, the electoral reforms, including a Comelec revamp may already be in place; our economy may have greatly improved; the ongoing political turbulence may have subsided and our politics may have miraculously metamorphosed into politics of principles rather than personalities. As of now, in the midst of a raging storm, the ship of State should not sail into uncharted seas by embarking into such drastic changes.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]