But electoral reforms need Charter changes

Having succeeded in demonizing reforms, foes of Charter change now advise the government to work instead on electoral upgrading. The pitch is deceptive. It wrongly implies that improved ways of changing the people at the top alone would salve the nation’s ills. The Filipino experience bares the reverse. While elections are keen occasions for the ruled to choose their rulers, the exercise can also be excuses to preserve oppressive systems. Why, if elections are so liberating, how come voters go on putting in office the same traditional politicos they also distrust?

This is not to belittle the uniqueness of elections as starting points for far-reaching reforms. Electoral improvements not only would entice sincere candidates and educate voters, but also spark changes beyond the ballot box. Still, the choice cannot be limited between Charter changes or electoral reforms. Many crucial election reforms need Charter changes.

The list of electoral reforms, drawn up by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide, bears this out. Half of his dozen proposals require constitutional amending.

But first, the six that can be done by executive and/or legislative action:

• Review the Omnibus Election Code to set a deadline for the settlement of poll protests within a reasonable period of time;

• Include in the school curriculum a subject on elections;

• Establish a committee on electoral reforms with representatives from the Comelec, Malacañang, Senate and House;

• Restore party representatives at the polling precincts;

• Ensure that all nominees to the elec are persons of "integrity beyond repute"; and

• Prohibit political dynasties and party switching.

The first four reforms could be classified as easy. The last two, however, are iffy. "Integrity beyond repute", for instance, can be very subjective. Reality is that it would depend on the interpretation of the majority party. For, that majority would also happen to control the Commission on Appointments to ratify presidential nominations to constitutional bodies like the Comelec. As for banning political dynasties and political turncoats, it would be wishful thinking to expect Congress to enact such laws. The Constitution would turn 20 years in Feb.; the bills for the twin electoral reforms have been filed and shelved by six Congresses. It’s unlikely that the one to be elected in 2007 would be struck by lightning to finally pass them. On the contrary, the Senate Minority Leader, a former street activist and icon of Charter change opponents, has said his family might as well set up a dynasty starting with his Junior’s senatorial run in May, since he has failed to push his old bill anyway.

The next six Davide proposals clearly require Charter changes:

• Return to the two-party system in order to promote platforms instead of personalities;

• All Comelec decisions must be by all seven commissioners sitting en banc and not by mere divisions of three;

• Desynchronize national and local elections;

• Fix to four years the terms of all local officials and congressmen;

• Professionalize the Comelec; and

• Ban appointments of incumbent elected officials to any other public office.

Davide figures that the multiparty system doesn’t fit the presidential form of government. But returning to the two-party system would require deletion of three sections in Article IX, Constitutional Commissions, that provide for multiparty system and party-list voting.

The abolition of Comelec divisions and desynchronizing of elections would need rewriting of the pertinent provisions not only in Article IX but also in XVI, General Provisions.

Adding an extra year to the present three-year terms of congressmen and local officials could make them work harder, instead of preparing for reelection right after winning. But this would mean alterations in Articles VI, The Legislative Department, and X, Local Government.

It may be said that professionalizing the Comelec and banning appointments of elective officials to other positions can be done by legislation. But then, the Constitution specifies the qualifications of the Comelec commissioners – which may need revising in order to make the poll body truly professional. Another alteration would be in the duties of local officials – to ban them from taking on other government work. As it is, certain local officials sit in special commissions.

But then, those who fear opening up the Constitution would want to limit the people’s options only to what the system can offer. History shows that such unworkable system eats up the people who try to change it.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]