A tapestry of many threads

In a column I once described efforts of advocates for Charter change as second only to our campaign for independence. I was wrong. Looking at how the present debate has developed, I think it is not second but at par, indeed it is contemporaneous with our desire to be our own ‘people’.

It is easy to get embroiled in the welter of facts and personalities and lose sight of the entire tapestry. One thread is the historical angle. As Raul Lambino of Sigaw ng Bayan tells his audiences – the desire and effort for parliamentary government in the Philippines did not start with President GMA, Speaker JDV or President FVR.

It has a long history dating back to the 1898 Malolos Congress and the 1899 Malolos Constitution. Even then the natural instincts of our political leaders were in favor of parliamentary government. We may have revolted against Spain but the roots of our political organizing also came from Spain.

As Felino Neri who was a delegate in the 1971 Constitutional Convention said a few days before he died, "Our experience with the parliamentary system comes from our history. During the more than 300 years of our history, our orientation was European before it ever became American. Our literature came from Europe, our political and social ideas came from Europe, out young men went to Europe when they could afford to study abroad and Europe is the cradle of parliamentary government."

So how did we come to a presidential system? Maximo Kalaw wrote in the 1930s that the presidential system gave sole cabinet responsibility to the governor general and not to the legislature. That gave greater and more direct exercise of government powers by the American governor general.

Yet may proponents of the presidential system argue that parliamentary government is alien to the Philippines. Nothing could be more false. The debate between parliamentary vs. presidential government has been going on from the Constitution of Biak na Bato of 1897, the Constitution of Makabulos, the Malolos Constitution of 1899, the Commonwealth Constitution of 1935, the martial law-disrupted Constitutional convention of 1971 up to the present time with the Arroyo government going all out for parliamentary government.

To justify its colonization, the US government issued the Proclamation of Benevolent Assimilation after a bloody pacification campaign which killed more than 600,000 Filipinos. It began by implanting its uniquely American political institutions. Remember that its colonization of the Philippines was a major foray in the imperialist arena. It competed with European nations not just for political supremacy but also in cultural and economic fields. It was not until 1934 that the Philippine Independence Act also known as the Tydings McDuffie Law established the Commonwealth Government. According to Vicente Sinco the plebiscite on the 1934 Constitution was more than an act of ratification. It was also the legal means to determine whether the Filipinos were in favor of independence.

Miguel Cuaderno, who was present during the debates and helped draft the 1934 Constitution was a first hand witness that we had no choice but to adopt the American model of a presidential system for the Philippines in 1935. It is said that President Quezon himself reminded them of the consequences of the disapproval of the Constitution by President Roosevelt’s Gentlemen, no Constitution, no independence. Not surprisingly, the constitutional convention of 1934 turned in a faithful model of the US Constitution of 1787. Antonio Araneta, nephew of Salvador Araneta relates he asked Cuaderno who was already in his 70s why he had to run for delegate and what he wanted in this convention. His terse reply was "I want a parliamentary form of government. That is all I want in this convention. I want a parliamentary form of government because it provides immediate accountability" instead of the periodic accountability that we now have which is a source of massive corruption among many of our politicians."

He cited examples of the benefits of a parliamentary government but Araneta remembers it was Cuaderno’s comment on the Vietnam war that struck him. The Vietnam War was a controversial issue in the United States at the time. Commenting on the Vietnam war, Governor Cuaderno emphasized, "If America had a parliamentary government that American involvement in the Vietnam war would have ended a long time ago."

This is the history that Filipinos against Charter change want to ignore. Thus they are being more American than the Americans who would understandably be against changing a governance system they had bequeathed to us. We are being regaled by those against Charter change efforts that this is a mere Arroyo ploy to stay in power forgetting that our forefathers had fought for parliamentary government. Expect the attacks to become stronger and louder when Congress comes nearer to achieving its constitutionally mandated role to propose Charter changes.

These enemies of Charter change claim that we should have elections first so that the Arroyo government can be ousted once they win more seats in Congress and the Senate. They will move heaven and earth not to have a plebiscite because they do not want an Arroyo watch over the shift to parliamentary government.

Why? Where is all this virulence against Arroyo coming from? I have my own hunch and this is another thread to consider. It happened not too long ago when the Philippines pulled out of Iraq. The elaboration of such an opinion will take books but it can be condensed in a few statements. Some Americans have never forgotten or forgiven that it was President GMA, who first pulled the rug from under the American war debacle in Iraq when she decided that the Philippine contingent in Iraq leave earlier than scheduled in exchange for the life of the driver Angelo de la Cruz. Not soon after other countries followed. That would not be forgotten or forgiven by some American officials.

Aside from the Iraq episode, other serious differences between the Palace and the US embassy have to do with the "war against terror." US officials want the Philippine government to deal with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for coddling "terrorists". This the Arroyo government has refused to do. Finally, a lot of China-watchers in the US are said to be pissed off by Arroyo’s flirtation with Beijing. In this effort she is helped and encouraged by Speaker JDV and former President FVR. All this are signs of a growing independence and a willingness to forge our own destiny. Charter change being forged as a party platform will greatly enhance such a departure from our traditional ties. Draw your conclusion.

My e-mail is [email protected]