Yes, we must move on

Former Senator Ernesto Herrera should have won in the last senatorial elections, but given our present political setup he did not have a hell of a chance against Loi and Jinggoy Estrada, Jamby Madrigal, Panfilo Lacson and the rest of that ilk.

Sen. Pimentel offered an explanation for this. Why does an intelligent man like him support politicians whom he knows were neither qualified nor fit to govern? He said, in so many words, he may hold his principles in private but it was different when it came to the public arena. How does one win an election? The inference was to win one would need money, popularity and a political organization. I kept that in mind and was grateful for his candor.

I thought it ironic that Mr. Herrera should write against Charter change in his review of Pimentel’s Martial Law in the Philippines: My Story when it is the present system that has prevented qualified men like him from winning elections without bowing to lower forces.

The problem with Herrera’s review is that it does not distinguish between the merits of Charter change itself and the party politics that has demonized it. That distinction will have to be made.

It may be true that like Marcos, President GMA supports Charter change, including the shift from the presidential to the parliamentary system. She sees Charter change as necessary for the long term political stability of the country and Charter change advocates agree with her. No matter the economic gains of the country during her term, these can be easily unraveled in the next elections. That happened during Ramos’ time when Estrada took over.

I may agree with former Senator Herrera who quoted George Santayana that "he who does not heed the lessons of history is condemned to repeat them", but I beg to disagree with him on what those lessons were.

In 1971, constitutional reform was not, I repeat, not the initiative of Marcos. The attempt to put our house in order through Charter change was made by reform minded Filipinos time and time again. So was it in 1971. "Correctly or not, many people tended to regard the Constitution of 1935 as the root cause of all their troubles and agitated for its revision." writes Soliman Santos on the history of the debate between parliamentary vs. presidential in the Philippines.

In fact, proposals for parliamentary government for the Philippines has been made consistently for more than three decades. During Marcos’ time the roster of those who supported political reform through Charter change ranged from militant youth, political leaders in and out of Congress, prominent educators, distinguished lawyers, journalists as well as civic minded citizens.

At the time it had the makings of an effort that would have unified the nation and eventually transform the political institutions of the country for good governance. Many delegates supported parliamentary government until Marcos saw the shift as a way to keep himself in power. So it is not Charter change that ought to be condemned or its rejection that we can learn from but what Marcos did to pervert Charter change to suit his dynastic ambitions.

Indeed, when Delegate Eduardo Quintero exposed the payola scheme from Malacañang, he made it abundantly clear that he was for parliamentary change. The aim of the payola was to shift to parliamentary without a ban against Marcos or his family. On May 19, 1972, writes my sister-in-law, Lita Pedrosa Hidalgo in her short essay on Eduardo Quintero in a book edited by Asuncion David Maramba "Mga Bagong Bayani", he dropped the bombshell. "While he unconditionally favored the shift to parliamentary system of government, he revealed to the Constitutional Convention that he had received money totaling P11,150 (a princely sum at the time) from Malacañang Palace. The objective of the payola was to bribe delegates into voting for a parliamentary shift but against the ban provision to ensure that Marcos would stay in power," Hidalgo writes.

It would be wrong to blame the men and women in the 1971 Constitutional Convention who attempted to make a final break with the presidential system, for Marcos’ dynastic designs. What is clear is that time and time again, outside factors determined the outcome of the Herculean efforts to reform government through Charter change.

So is it with the present efforts. The challenge is how to see the changes through in the context of the political environment and the personalities who inhabit it now. I don’t think any of us in the Advocacy Commission are unaware of the dangers which lurk. But if we have to change the system, and if President GMA helps us to do it, so be it. The challenge is to guard against any attempt to pervert Charter change as Marcos did, but not by stopping it.

Moreover, times have changed. Today, Filipinos are more aware and there is a wider circle of players in the political field wanting it. President Arroyo’s espousal of Charter change is not the same as in Marcos’ time. But it would be folly to think that Charter change can happen outside the prevailing context unless, as I have said many times, we start from ground zero, and kill all politicians and stakeholders of the status quo as Cambodia did.

We must find the ways to minimize outside factors from messing with the debate on the issue of form of government. After all, this is a legitimate question of governance, how to strengthen our political institutions and how to institute reforms. For advocates, a parliamentary form of government is superior to presidential if we are to achieve effective governance. The debate is not only in the Philippines but in many countries which have adopted parliamentary government to consolidate democracy.

In this sense, the Herrera article is not helpful. Wanting the country to move forward does not exclude remembering the martial law years. In a way, there is no one, not Pimentel, not Herrera, not anyone in the Philippines today who has not made some accommodation with the tragedy of Marcos’ martial law. It is not the prerogative of those who are now opposed to Charter change.

Nene Pimentel is not the only one who was a victim of martial law. There are many others but they do not have his gifts and talents. He consorts with some of the most prominent personalities of Marcos’ martial law regime and writes a book remembering martial law. But such a book must not be used to condemn others if they want to move on. As a founder of the federalist movement, Pimentel should support Charter change and make sure it happens. He can do so from the vantage point of a leader of the Opposition. That would be the best way to make sure that President GMA does not set the agenda for Charter change. Make it a multi-party effort.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]