Line of greatest resistance

People refusing to change the charter or to "cha-cha" are not really allergic to it.They are more sensitive to the amendments being proposed.The line of greatest resistance is drawn in sharper strokes on the proposed shift in the form of government.This is the bottom line of the raging debate.One side says that the nation’s ills are not due to the presidential system composed of the legislative, executive and the judiciary now in place.It is not the system but the people manning it who must undergo reforms.

On the other hand, people itching to cha-cha want to replace the present system because it is the main source of the country’s problems.They want a unicameral body which will serve as the legislative and executive branch of the government to be headed by a"premier" or "prime minister" who also exercises executive power and control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. His cabinet members shall be chosen from among the duly elected representatives of this unicameral body to which his team shall be answerable.His tenure as premier or prime minister hinges on the confidence of at least the majority or a bigger number of members of this assemblage. Under this system,only two branches are basically functioning: the parliament or national assembly and the judiciary. This is the essence of the alternative system being proposed, call it "parliamentary" or by whatever nomenclature.

The oppositors say this system won’t work here because we don’t have program oriented political parties like where the system came from,namely Great Britain. But this is purely speculative and begging the question.We will never know whether the system will work until we try it. And we will never develop program oriented political parties precisely because ours is a multi-party presidential system and not parliamentary. Until the parliamentary system is adopted, program oriented political parties will never sprout.

If only for economy’s sake, I prefer the alternative parliamentary system or any of its variations Philippine style. Virtually merging the executive and legislative functions into one body unquestionably results in enormous reduction of government budget. A lot of manhours, money, paperwork and manpower will also be saved if one house of Congress will be dismantled. The same bill passed by one chamber will not have to go through a similar tedious process all over again in the other house. And thereafter still pass through a Conference Committee of both chambers to reconcile the differences in the bill.Merging the main functions of two branches and consolidating the two houses of one branch mean a lot of savings.We will economize not only in government expenditure but in government work, not to mention the drastic shortening of the time consuming and stressful bureaucratic red tape.

Edsa and the concommitant controversy arising as to its legality will also be forever a thing of the past. People will not be forced to march and rally en masse to boot out a corrupt or inept regime. The assembly of representatives they have chosen will do it for them in a constitutionally cleaner manner.The parliament of the streets and the perceived mob rule will be replaced by the assemblage of the people’s representatives in the august halls where reason is the main weapon in seeking the common good and removing leaders who thwart it.

Let’s give charter change a chance.Now is not the time to be coy to cha-cha. Remove any doubts on the motives of our legislators in convening themselves into a constituent assembly to do the cha-cha. After all, whatever amendments they decide to adopt are mere proposals subject to ratification by the people in a plebiscite.On the other hand, to show sincerity and purity of motives, our legislators should diqualify themselves from running for any position under the new charter in the election to be held immediately after its effectivity.

E-mail: [email protected]