Impossible dream?

If PNoy is really sincere in building “a just and humane society and establishing a government that shall promote the common good, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace” as embodied in the preamble of our present Constitution, he should relax his firm stand against charter change. It is only by changing our constitution will we really make a great stride towards achieving such purpose. And and this should be enough reason for PNoy to give up on his belief that said document needs no amendment as of now.

In fact, the amendment should not only be confined to the economic provisions as advocated by Speaker Belmonte and Senate President Enrile. PNoy may have good reasons for rejecting such amendments because of the favorable economic indicators now in place; while Enrile and Belmonte may also have good points in pushing for it especially in the light of the increasing globalization of trade and industry.

But all three of them should realize that it is in the amendment of some political provisions of the Constitution where the common good and other purposes embodied in the preamble can be promoted and realized. If PNoy, Enrile and Belmonte really want to introduce reforms in government and eradicate or at least reduce and minimize corruption, they should wholeheartedly endorse the amendments of some political provisions of the constitution. Our kind of politics really needs true reforms if we want to make a significant stride towards achieving the purpose of our Constitution as embodied in the preamble.

Admittedly, amending the political provisions of the constitution looks like an impossible dream at this time considering the present crop of politicians and the political structure now in place. Even then, there is no harm in articulating the vision of the “silent majority” about some of the much needed political reforms that will certainly contribute to the attainment of a just Philippine society and a clean and honest government.

First and foremost of these amendments is on giving equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties (Section 26, Article II). The Constitution here is merely setting forth a State policy and still leaves it up to the legislature to implement the policy and define political dynasty. But after 25 years the legislature has not yet enacted any law giving flesh to such policy. And no such law will be enacted simply because our legislature is composed mostly of people belonging to political dynasties who would naturally resist any attempt to erode their power base.

Hence the constitution itself should be amended by providing that upon the expiration of the term limits of incumbent national and local officials, their relatives within the third degree of consanguinity (blood) or affinity (marriage) shall be prohibited to run for the same positions in order to succeed them.

Another amendment that will reform our politics is on the provision regarding the party list system of representation in the Lower House of Congress (Section 5 (1) (2), Article VI). This provision was meant to precisely give the poor and marginalized sectors of our society equal access to opportunities for public service. Ironically however, it has all the more deprived the really marginalized and poor sectors of our society that adequate and true representation in the Lower House.

The system has only given the rich and powerful the opportunity to retain power by becoming the nominees of several party list groups for a “valuable consideration”. This is confirmed by the recent report that there are 51 millionaires representing the party list groups. Furthermore it has also given the underground leftist groups adequate financial means and some foothold on power to advance their cause of replacing our democracy with communism which they have been previously trying to achieve by the use of force. We should therefore abolish this party list system of representation already and just retain the original representation by legislative districts.

The constitutional policy allowing the creation of numerous political parties should also be abandoned. As shown by the experience in the past 25 years, such practice has only fostered politics of personalities where parties or alliances are formed around rich and powerful politicians or politicians with great potential of acquiring power and ruling the country. Apparently even after the ouster of Marcos, his KBL party has been resurrected and still now in vogue only with a different name and around different political personalities. We should revert back to the old two-party system where people join or choose candidates based on the platforms and programs of their political parties. This is the only way to revive the politics of principles we used to have during the early years of our independence.

Then to assure that the electorate will really vote “wisely” as repeatedly espoused every election, the requirement for the exercise of the right of suffrage should not be limited to age (18 years) and residence (6 months in the place they propose to vote and one year in the Philippines). Literacy and property must be added as qualifications for the exercise of the right of suffrage. This means that voters must also be able to read and write and must own substantial properties for which they pay taxes so that they will have a bigger stake in electing the right candidates who will ensure the establishment of good government.

Of course all these proposals seem to be asking for the moon. But let us always keep faith and remember that some realities were mere dreams once upon a time.

Our email address: [email protected], or [email protected]