Another shot at parliamentary form

Senators have always resisted the growing clamor of the thinking class to switch to a parliamentary form of government. Their arguments against it range from blaming the executive branch for the country’s woes to the costliness of a constitutional convention. But proponents suspect that the 24 men and women elected at large are only protecting their turf and six-year terms.

The resistance is melting of late. Leaders of the Senate are quietly telling their administration and opposition partymates in the House of Representatives to restart the debate, and they’ll support it this time. For some reason, they still don’t want to come out openly for change of government. But they’ve come to realize that the system isn’t working.

The bicameral Congress – with two virtual boards of directors if likened to a private firm – is often deadlocked on crucial bills. If they do pass one, a third board comes into play: a conference committee that can rewrite what the Senate and House majorities already have approved. Then, the executive branch takes its sweet time in drafting rules and implementing the law, as in the case of the Clean Air Act of 1999. Basic government services are not being delivered promptly, if at all.

Party platforms, too, have come to depend on the wishes of an all-powerful President. Politics is becoming more centered on personalities rather than programs. A senator who used to lead coup attempts is now the partymate of another who used to stop him and still another who is related to the coup target. A defender of a dictator and later of an impeached President is now a member of the Cabinet of the successor he had sought to be impeached too.

Worst of all, the senators foresee in 2004 the election to the Presidency of a matinee idol or a popular television newsreader or even a drug lord.

A parliament is seen to change all this. It would be unicameral, with the ministers being elected by electoral districts. They would choose from among themselves the head of government, who will then form a Cabinet from among the ministers. The prime minister can be dislodged any time for loss of confidence. Parliament itself can dissolve, and snap elections called, any time the combined legislative-executive branches mess up the job. The task of delivering services would fall on the ministers, overseen by the Cabinet. They would have to prove themselves as administrators and visionaries, not just popular faces. Party platforms can flourish.

The timing and process of change is tricky. The way senators see it, Congress can transform itself into a Constituent Assembly sometime next year to tackle one and only change in the Constitution: extend their terms and that of the President, Vice President and all local officials by a year or two. The 2004 synchronized presidential, congressional and local polls would be scrapped for an election of a Constitutional Convention. The delegates would amend the Constitution’s provisions on the form of government and powers of the legislature and chief executive. A plebiscite would be called by 2006. A parliament can be elected on the next year.

The details aren’t refined yet. But by 2007, the 12 senators elected in 2001 would have served their six-year terms. Gloria Arroyo, too, who took over from a resigned Joseph Estrada in January 2001, would have served a President’s usual six years, give or take a few months. There should be a smooth turnover of power from Congress and Malacañang to the new parliament. Local officials would have enjoyed an extra three years in office, and can run for parliament or for reelection.

Administration congressmen are keen on the idea. They foresee a crisis arising from low tax collections caused not only by massive evasion but also business slowdown due to political uncertainties. Their efforts to avert it through economic measures are being blocked at the Senate. They cannot understand why, despite the administration majority in the Senate, Malacañang’s pet bills are not moving. Among these are the:

* franchise for the government-owned Transmission Company which needs to sell $2 billion in Napocor facilities to private investors;

* Special-Purpose Asset Vehicle, which can entice $4-5 billion in foreign investments;

* securitization bill, which intends to free for housing finance billions of pesos tied up in banks’ foreclosed real estate lendings;

* housing bill to meet the backlog of 4.7 million homes;

* revision of the documentary stamp tax system to raise government revenues;

* railways program to create new transportation lines; and

* incentives to small- and medium-size enterprises.

For the congressmen, nonpassage of the bills by their Senatecounterparts is a strong argument for unicameral parliament. They acknowledge, though, that they have to convince former President Cory Aquino and Catholic bishops to support their proposed switch. The latter hold the view that the system isn’t working alright, but only because of the persons in power. Congressmen and senators must show that with a new system, everything will work out fine.

* * *

The Philippines has won a seat in the prestigious International Theater Institute executive committee. Cecille Guidote Alvarez, who led a delegation of playwrights and stage directors to the 29th ITI Congress in Athens on Oct. 14-19, was also reaffirmed as co-president of ITI’s committee on cultural identity and development, Unesco commissioner Alejandro Roces announced.

ITI is the Unesco arm for theater development and dramatic programs. Malou Jacob, Dr. Anton Juan Jr. and Lutgardo Labad had joined Alvarez in finalizing arrangements for the Philippine hosting of the 6th Women Playwrights International Conference in November 2003.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to [email protected].