It happens all the time. So it should not come as a surprise that constitutional reform is once again being put up as the bogeyman against term extension for an incumbent president. It has been used time and again when there is a growing consciousness that only a total revamp of the system can solve our problems.
Whoever is behind this continuous effort to frustrate constitutional reform in the Philippines has been around for a long time. We have seen it used whether there is a good President with unfinished work to be done or when a bad President has destroyed the good work of his/her predecessor. Because of this the presidential system with the six-year fixed term has been described as too long for a bad president and too short for a good one.
With President Aquino’s flawed and failed presidency it is the case of the former. We cannot afford to have him finish his term with his divisiveness or last even for one year more as he lurches from one error to the next. With that situation the bogeyman of constitutional reform is an easy sell. It is going around as text messages that those who are for constitutional reform are either too naïve or in cahoots with the presidential strategy for another term. Therefore, let’s stop all this talk of constitutional reform. This is so untrue. It is time to tackle both issues head-on.
We cannot and should not have another election with the questions on 2010 and 2013 elections still unresolved. We would be foolish to have another PCOS election. Neither should we keep an ineffective, impeachable President destroying the country with the support of oligarchic media. For now responsible Filipinos are talking mostly in social media discussing and arguing on how to deal with both. It is this dilemma that has brought on the rumors of an impending “coup d’etat.”
* * *
I recently visited a former military general to ask him about the rumors. He told me instead to read the article of former military general in another newspaper.
In sum, the article says, it will all depend on civil authority. If it persists on weakening the state through a constitutional crisis, it may create the situation when the military will have no choice but to perform its constitutional role. It is embodied in Article II, on statement of principles Section 4. “Civilian authority is supreme over the military for all time. The Armed Forces shall secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”
We are in danger of keeling over with politics engendered by the kind of presidential system we have developed. Instead of focusing on the defects of the system, constitutional reform is criticized as an excuse for another term for Aquino. And who would want that? That is a lie that easily deceives people to reject constitutional reform. But for those who have been around and fought for constitutional reform since the first Aquino became president it is a refrain from an old song.
You’d think that with the unresolved issues of the 2010 and 2013 elections, people would realize that election is the bane of our nation building — each election worse than the one that went before. We have reached a nadir if we continue with election in 2016 with the same system that denied us leadership when we needed it most. We do elections wrongly because we have a system that is wrong for us.
If the military were not monitoring the situation closely, they would be remiss in their constitutional mandate.
* * *
The onus is on civilian authority, whether it be the incumbent government or an alternative civilian council. There are a few groups that are organizing in the event that a strong civilian authority would be called for and the military moves to protect the state. By the state we mean not only the government but all its elements — the nation, the people as well as the bureaucracy and the economy. As ordinary citizens we have the duty to support this civilian authority that has been described as a National Transformation Council. It is ready to move when it is called for to preserve the wellbeing of the state. It would be an interim government with revolutionary powers. Only then can constitutional reform be put into motion. That would take time and the criminal offenders will have to be removed to enable the nation to get on its feet with a new Constitution and a reformed bureaucracy.
* * *
Constitutional reform advocates should continue their work. Indeed they will perform the unenviable task of finding new answers to old questions. It will demand innovation and creativity that would answer each problem that came to light in the degradation of the present presidential system.
Some have been experimenting with a new method of constitution making through bayanko.org.ph, crowdsourcing website.
In the past we were happy with a constitutional convention or constitutional assembly of politicians to draft our Constitution. This was the top down Constitution the masses hardly understood. And yet we were made to believe that a referendum in which they participate was the only way to give it legitimacy.
Supposing we were to reverse the process and make it a bottom up constitution-making so that by the time we had a referendum the masses understood in their own way what they were voting for. That is what the bayanko.org.ph is doing with its crowdsourcing website — getting as many people to give opinions and suggestions on what they think a new Constitution should be and why. Then they would truly be the authors of the Constitution and not mere tools for an oligarchy that failed them. In my opinion, the process would put both the rich and poor together on more equal terms to create a document that would be effective in binding the nation together.
* * *
This is the way to go — use technology for a more inclusive politics.
It is happening in other countries. We could adopt the same policy in the Philippines where it is even more needed because of the wide gap between the few and the many, the rich and the poor. We cannot make a nation out of such social and economic disparity.
Matt Browne in his article “Middle Out Economics and Bottom Up politics” for Social Europe Journal was writing about the need for radical policy change in US and Europe. It could apply as well to the Philippines.
“While social media and new online organizing tools present an opportunity for progressive parties, they simultaneously lower the barriers of entry into the political process for those who feel excluded or ignored.”