Time to change

By this time, Christmas should fill the air and the prevailing mood should be festive and joyful in keeping with the spirit of the season. But here we are still in the midst of so many divisive wranglings and early political maneuverings, speculations, skepticisms, anticipations of moves and countermoves, and exchanging of charges and countercharges from all sides of the political fence. The air is filled with ruinous rumors and dire predictions of harder times ahead thus triggering another exodus of our countrymen to greener pastures and the revival of talks about changing our charter to change our form of government. The air is therefore filled not only with Christmas carols but with the lively beat of the "cha-cha", the abbreviated term we use for charter change. And why not.

It was also during this time of the year in 1996 when some groups tried to initiate a constitutional change through a movement called PIRMA or People’s Initiatiative for Reform, Modernization and Action. But such movement got a severe beating from almost every sector, including the Church because of the wide perception that it was nothing but a device to perpetuate the stay of those who were in power at that time. The move to change the charter then was even branded as "immoral" such that noise barrages were conducted by the ringing of Church bells culminating in a huge rally at the Luneta in September, 1997.Cha-cha never had a chance to get off the ground then.

Between 1996 and this year 2002, six years and several historic and significant events came to pass. A review of these events gives us the benefit of a hindsight which proves once and for all that there are indeed enough good reasons to amend our Constitution.

One of the greatest fears at that time was the kind of politics and politicians we had and the political exercises we conducted. Then, as now, elective officials played politics year in and year out even if it was not election time. And candidates won not so much because of qualifications but more so because of money and machinery; and most important of all, popularity and name recall were the deciding factors in elections. The belief of those advocating "cha cha" during those times, though not openly expressed, was that unless the constitution was amended, a popular actor would be the next president. We all know that the actor really became our President and in such a short time his administration wallowed in corruption and immorality leading to his impeachment and ouster through another Edsa people power uprising. Now we are facing the same prospect in the coming presidential elections. Are we ready and willing to entrust the reins of government again to a box office king and movie matinee idol? I am not belittling our countrymen in the movie industry. Most of them are good men and women. But the art of governing requires skills and competence very much different from movie acting that cannot be acquired overnight and while already on the job.

From 1996 to 2002 and even before that, we also encountered a lot of aberrations in our system of government particularly in the executive and legislative department. Just recently, a congressman who was elected under a cloud of doubt and who is facing extradition for various offenses abroad, went berserk in the floor of the house denouncing a cabinet member for alleged pay offs based on unconfirmed and unreliable evidence, and calling for a congressional investigation. Intrusions and meddling between the two branches of government are now accepted practices particularly congressional investigations of executive deals and the presidential attempts to hold sway in both Houses for passage of pet bills deemed necessary in carrying out the program of government. How can we ever get out of this mess?

In Congress itself, the exercise of legislative power does not always jibe. More often than not, two versions of a bill on the same subject are churned out of the legislative mill. The budget or the appropriations bill is the best example of this unsynchronized moves. Recently, we have different versions of the absentee voting bill passed by the Senate and the House. These incongruencies have necessitated the formation of a bicameral conference committee which reconciles the different versions to come out with the final bill. In effect, this bicameral committee performs the legislative functions of both houses, so why do we still need two houses in Congress?

It seems clear now that one of the feasible solutions in sight to all our present problems is a constitutional change. We have to revise our charter and shift from the Presidential to the Parliamentary system with the merging of the executive and legislative into a unicameral body. This shift is necessary to insure a leadership of the highest quality who will wield power and run the affairs of government. The leader here is still chosen by the people indirectly through their representatives in the parliament, instead of direct voting which has been reduced into a popularity contest. The shift will also eliminate the constant intrusions into and meddling with the functions of the legislative and the executive branch because the parliament leader and his team are also members of, and will be solely answerable to the single parliament which can change them for any anomaly or misgovernance committed. And finally, the shift will likewise do away with the present duplicitous exercise of legislative power which entails a lot of waste in terms of time, money and energy.

It's about time that we seriously consider these changes. Let’s forget about politics and the elections first. For once, our leaders should think of our country first before their personal ambitions. People should shed the fears of 1996-97. Let’s try something new. We should not be afraid of change, otherwise we will be forever stuck in the rut we are in now.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]