Debate the whys, hows of Cha-cha

Huh, is this how long it takes to evaluate a criminal complaint? A news bit yesterday stated that an executive is begging the Quezon City prosecutor to resolve a suit he filed a year ago. It’s for falsifying public documents, normally an open and shut case. An Australian, Andrew James McBurnie, had charged the exec’s firm before the labor dispute commission with illegal dismissal. Making the story lurid was the staggering P60 million the foreigner was demanding from constructor E. Ganzon Inc. It turned out, however, that when McBurnie swore by his affidavits purportedly in Manila in 2002, he was actually in Australia, having left for good in 1999, based on immigration files. Given the data, it should be easy to decide whether to dismiss or elevate the case to court.

The labor issue itself has been dragging far too long, moving in the past 11 years from the labor arbiter to appellate justices to the Supreme Court. It was in the news also a year ago because of what lawyers decried as case files suddenly disappearing and court deadlines lapsing without due notice. Different court divisions have rendered contrary rulings, and new parties implicated even if not mentioned in original suits. All this happened despite the complainant’s non-appearance in all 14 hearings of the labor arbiter.

*      *      *

Persons allergic to the term “Charter change” itched all over upon hearing its mention this week. You can’t blame them. Many attempts to redraft the Constitution were handiworks of devious politicos. Mouthing social, political and economic reform, they evoked the selfless sacrifices of our heroes. But the intention was only to prolong themselves in power.

Still there’s good reason to judge at this time whether to amend the fundamental law. As admin Rep. Ben Evardone and Catholic Archbishop Angel Lagdameo note, the start of any President’s term is fitting to talk long-term changes. There are no suspicions about motives.

Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno points out not only the timeliness of Charter change but also its urgency. For years he has been warning about the state’s slide from a frail to a failed democracy. “Save it from irrelevance ... of dinosaur ideas,” he says. “We cannot wait for our democracy to be in the ICU before we call in the doctors.”

Foreign Policy magazine last June rated the Philippines 51st among 60 failed and failing states. All 12 indicators used by FP afflict our land: demographic rot, like prevalent infectious disease and child death; brain drain; refugees; illegitimate rulers; public service deterioration, chiefly in education and health; inequality; group grievances, like persecution and neglect; human rights violations; economic erosion; factionalized elites; warlordism; and external meddling. Some of the ills clearly need Charter changing, not just legislation or administration, to cure. Puno for his part advocates redemptive amendments to fully and fiscally depoliticize the judiciary. He lists other reforms: represent the marginalized in Congress; elevate education and health as demandable as civil rights; prevent gridlock among the three government branches; and enable constituents to recall bad officials.

Charter change is often associated with pushing for parliamentary form, or economic openness, or federalist structure. Those are legitimate advocacies, arguably attuned to the times. But even “presidentialists” need constitutional revising to fortify their favored form of government. Example: “A vote for the President is a vote for the Vice Presidential running mate, and vice versa.” Or, a return to a two-party system to suit the presidential system, in lieu of the present multiparty that’s made for parliamentary. Or, in order to ensure a majority President, to schedule automatic a runoff balloting between the two highest vote getters if both garner only pluralities.

Needless to stress, “parliamentarists” and “presidentialists” alike would want to define  in order to definitely ban  political dynasties. Both would want to deprive putschists a reason for being by erasing the provision that makes the military the “protector of the people.” Both would want more foreign investments by lifting the limits on ownership of utilities, schools, mines, and advertising firms.

Many of the country’s political and consequently socioeconomic ills start with its flawed electoral system. Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide has proposed a slew of reforms, some to be done by revamping the Comelec or by legislation. But his other proposals need Charter remaking: four-year terms for congressmen and local officials; de-synchronize national and local elections; ban the appointment of elective local officials or congressmen to other public office during their term; ban the appointment of senators to other public office within three years from election; aside from defining and prohibiting political dynasties, to provide harsh sanctions for violations; forbid elective officials from changing party affiliation during their term; adopt the electoral reforms proposed by the 2006 Consultative Commission; cultivate party politics; develop two major political parties; provide financial assistance to political parties based on share of votes cast; and forbid financial contributions from foreign governments.

The form of constitutional amending  by elected convention or congressional action  hews closely with the intended amendments.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]