Why can’t we have a plebiscite?

During a fracas at the press conference of Speaker JDV and other congressmen/women in Dusit Hotel, I was surprised when a rather intelligent lady journalist echoed Mr. R. C. Constantino’s claim that he was speaking for the people. Well, yes then, if they claim they are the people and they have the majority, then they should insist on a plebiscite to determine once and for all what the score is. A referendum or a plebiscite is a direct vote by the entire electorate whether to accept or reject what is, after all, merely a proposal. All those against Charter changes should win hands down if we are to believe the surveys. I cannot overemphasize the word proposed because until and unless a plebiscite is conducted any proposal is stillborn. Only when the electorate by a majority votes for it can if be given life and implemented. So the nagging question is why oh why is any proposal for Charter change being shut down each time it is attempted?

* * *

A colleague in the Advocacy Commission warns that there is now a fund dedicated to finance a smear campaign against the commissioners to get back at those who dared to propose Charter changes. According to this informant the first in line to be attacked is Commissioner Mela Bengzon. She has filed annulment proceedings on a marriage that had long gone sour even before she became a member of the Commission. But it does not matter to these life wreckers. Innuendos are being spread as if her marriage had irretrievably broken down only when she became a member of the Commission. She asks those who care for accuracy to get in touch with her directly so she can give them the facts of her annulment and the reasons for the marital breakdown instead of baseless innuendoes. The separation and annulment are now in the courts.

* * *

Here is an excerpted letter from an intelligent reader, Vlademer Ferreras<[email protected]. Ferreras writes that the period between the late ’70s and early ’80s was characterized by deteriorating economic and political conditions. Subsequent events triggered by Ninoy Aquino’s assassination moved people to resort to extra constitutional means to replace Marcos with Cory Aquino in ’86. When her term expired in ’92, Fidel Ramos was seen as a logical replacement. During his term, economic growth was achieved and sustained which provided lots of opportunities for people like us who were just starting to build our careers. At one point, the Philippine economy was being dubbed as the new tiger economy of Asia.

Towards the end of Ramos’ term in ’98, an Erap presidency started to become a real possibility. In most people’s mind, an Erap presidency would be a drastic deviation from the change trajectory started by Cory/Ramos and might throw us back to the Marcos years. The majority ruled and so we had Erap as our president. Again like Marcos, Erap was doing things that did not jibe with the values and expectations of some people. GMA, as the constitutional successor replaced Erap. She fit the Ramos formula, so we embraced her. There was a match between our expectations and what she promised to accomplish. But all sins of the past, for which she was not responsible, and poisoned political atmosphere due to unresolved issues connected to the sudden ouster of Estrada and Marcos, continued to haunt and limit her effectiveness. Her opponents ganged up on her. She declared she would not run for election and just finish the remaining term of Erap. As the 2004 elections drew nearer, a real possibility of Fernando Poe presidency emerged. Installing another Erap will be like going back to square one and throw away the gains of the Cory/Ramos/GMA administrations. Basing on ’98 election experience when machinery did not work against popularity (De Venecia vs Erap), who among the candidates would have the chance to beat Poe? A Poe victory was becoming a real possibility.

Only the incumbent President had the potential to beat him. So when GMA reversed her decision not to run, that was a welcome development for many. She inched up in surveys due to good campaign strategies, helped by the apparent switch of Roco and Villanueva supporters to GMA just to prevent a Poe victory. In fact, four days before the election, Pulse Asia released its last survey results showing GMA would win with 37 percent of the votes versus 31 percent for Poe. On the eve of the election, SWS issued almost similar survey results. Election came and we waited for the result of the exit polls. Two days after the election, SWS issued exit poll results showing GMA getting 40.9 percent of the votes against 32.3 percent for Poe, or equivalent to a winning margin of about 3 million votes. "That’s a mandate," said Antonio Gatmaitan, head of the Political Economy Applied Research Foundation, describing the SWS exit poll as "very credible" (Philippine STAR May 12, 2004). Now you have the pre-election surveys, exit polls, and quick counts (e.g., Namfrel, ABS-CBN, GMA, etc) really confirming Poe was beaten. Eight days after the election, Raul Roco conceded to GMA. Poe never conceded defeat.

GMA won, not as a majority president but as a minority president, an inherent weakness of a multi-party system such as ours. As a result, she would always be vulnerable to any future legitimacy attack by her opponents. The Garci tape provided that opportunity. The so-called Garci tape was not released while Poe was still alive. It had to be released when all of them would have a chance to ride on the issue and not only favor Poe. It was probably improper for GMA to talk to an election official at that time. But if I were GMA, I would really be worried. Exit survey showed she should win by 3 million votes, but actual counting showed less than a million votes. Where did the remaining 2 million votes go? Anyway, 1 million or 3 million winning margin would not have mattered. The important thing is she won.

Logic dictates that a winning candidate based on credible surveys, would not have the motivation to cheat. The motivation to cheat is stronger for the losing candidates. When we profile the anti-GMA personalities, we can generally lump them into two major sides, a portion of the original Cory supporters who did not like GMA (Roco and Villanueva) and the original Marcos and Erap supporters (Poe and Lacson). Individually or collectively, they are still in denial and continue to believe they won the 2004 election. Now, bring in to the equation those who originally supported GMA but rode on the bandwagon to suit their political interest (e.g., Drilon, Peter Cayetano, Hyatt 10, etc). Add the leftists who oppose anyone in power, count the opinion makers in media (e.g., Channel 2, Philippine Daily Inquirer, etc) who suit their opinions to the mob behavior, and what you will have is a critical and formidable force that almost succeeded in ousting her through series of resignation calls, impeachments and coup attempts. And they don’t relent. Believing that GMA is illegitimate based on flawed assumptions, everything she does is wrong. When you look at it, she is just following the Ramos formula (e.g., shift to parliamentary form of government, economic reforms, etc). Definitely, a government that believes it is legitimate would have the right to preserve and defend itself.

During the 2004 elections, Cory/Roco/Villanueva supporters, like GMA supporters, were fearful of a Poe presidency due to the Erap experience. But to be successful in their current effort to unseat GMA, they need the numbers and noise willingly provided by the Marcos/Erap/Poe/Lacson supporters. On the other hand, the Marcos/Erap/Poe/Lacson sides, who most of us believe are responsible for the problems we are trying to solve today, suddenly became righteous finding themselves on the same side with Cory/Roco/Villanueva. Now, you see two originally opposing sides trying to use each other to pursue a common goal to oust or weaken GMA. That for me is a kind of gross mental dishonesty.

Clear thinking has been thrown out of the window in favor of unprocessed emotions and unbridled attachment to personal interests and bruised ego. All of these things limit the effectiveness of the present administration which to my mind has the right formula and framework to move this country forward. But given the current conditions we are facing, the GMA administration may really have to be more flexible and strike compromises, which potentially might sacrifice efficiency, but hopefully, still achieve the same results. Certain sectors are really high-strung just waiting for the right opportunity to strike (look at the con-ass issue). But I believe that if GMA remains true to the original path, things will eventually self-correct in due time.

My e-mail is [email protected]