Letter to the Editor — Chacha for a new beginning

Except for those who have axes to grind against PGMA or have their own agenda, the celebrity-laden signatories of "One Voice" against the administration's campaign for amendment of the Constitution to change our system of government from presidential to parliamentary are no doubt inspired by their high ideals and lack of faith in the quality and sincerity of the leaders of this movement.

To paraphrase the "One Voice" advocates, we do need "safety nets" for the poor, especially in the areas of education, food, security, health and housing; strict implementation of agrarian reform and environmental laws; a serious and sustained fight against graft and corruption; and increased representation in Congress and local governments for marginalized sectors; a trustworthy electoral system."

But these needs are precisely denied under the present system of "checks and balances" in which the programs and policies initiated by the executive are stifled, named or diluted by the legislature, or on the other hand, progressive measures approved by the House of Representatives are ignored or archived by the Senate, or if approved by both houses, vetoed by the President. And in some cases, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court!

Under a parliamentary system, the mentioned "needs" can be speedily addressed because there will only be one legislative body composed of representatives of the different districts whose elected leader, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet exercises executive powers while the President has mainly ceremonial functions. And because there will be no President, Vice President and Senators to be elected "at large", elections will be simpler and faster and less expensive for the candidates.

The savings alone from the gargantuan allotment to the President's office and of the 24 Senators for salaries, extraordinary perks and pork barrel, can immediately be used to finance the "safety nets" contemplated by the "One Voice" advocates.

A constitutional convention is the ideal method of amending or reviewing our Constitution. But this has been proven to be cumbersome, expensive and practically indefinite in length. And there is no assurance that the very people - the "trapos" whom the "One Voice" derides or their surrogates and vested interests will not predominate in that national convention.

A constituent assembly is more practicable at this stage, and personally I believe the majority vote required by the Constitution should be determined by the composition of both chambers, rather than by separate vote of each House, because the Senators can never be expected to vote for the elimination of the Senate under a parliamentary form of government.

The last recourse to effect the amendment is of course by the people's initiative and referendum. Those who oppose this move should raise the issue of alleged lack of an enabling law to the Supreme Court where two of its present Justices had earlier sustained validity of the people's initiative to amend the Constitution.

With due respect to the "One Voice" propagandists, I believe there is urgent need to amend our Constitution - now. The epic struggle for reform should begin with the adoption of a parliamentary system of government. Our "One Voice" leaders can best achieve the reforms they envision by taking active and positive roles under a parliamentary system.

Atty. Mario D. Ortiz
Cebu City