It is so easy to be misled. Those behind "constitutional convention" are vanguards of Philippine society – how can you dispute Cory Aquino, Cardinal Sin, Jose Abueva, Ramon Magsaysay, Jr., Loren Legarda, Juan Flavier, Raul Roco, Joel Rocamora and his leftist brood,
et al.? These are the "good" guys. On the other hand, those in favor of constituent assembly, disparaged as "con-ass" have Speaker Jose de Venecia, 134 congressmen and some (we don’t have a count at this time of furious negotiations) senators. It also has the support of more than 1.2 million local authority officials and more than 1,000 NGOs. No matter. Even if they had the entire country behind them JDV, his allies in Congress and local authority officials are lumped together in one basket and dismissed as "politicians who cannot be trusted". Indeed, in a mud-slinging contest, its hands down for the ‘good guys’. This, despite some of the ‘good guys’ being more ‘politician’ than the politicians. I don’t know how or where the classification comes from but on close examination it is not only flawed, it is unjust.
Indeed, those against constitutional reform have successfully used JDV as their principal moving target. Shoot down JDV, they say, and you shoot down constitutional reform. Even with his sunshine coalition in Congress, he faces formidable opposition from those he already considers won over. It is a steep Sisyphean climb. It is understandable that he should be the target. JDV is the single most important personality in the campaign for constitutional reform. He is determined to see constitutional reform through as his legacy to the Filipino people. I believe him when he says, "I do not want to be prime minister. I do not want to be president". Yet the enemies of constitutional reform continue to vilify him. I sometimes think that it is a losing battle. But most constitutional reformists look to him as the skillful Speaker of the House who can muster support for coalition strategies necessary to the success of constitutional reform.
For his herculean efforts to the cause, he is derided as wanting to become prime minister because he cannot be elected president. It is sad that people accept this kind of reasoning. It was the same kind of mind manipulation that pitted JDV and Erap in the electoral contest of 1998. Branded a ‘trapo’ for successful legislation that underpinned the Ramos regime, the electorate chose Erap, a philandering and morally bankrupt actor who could not even be sober in the mornings for ordinary presidential duties. So who was the real ‘trapo’? JDV can become prime minister if he wants to because he has the intelligence, the disposition and the experience to be a first among equals. But he cannot and will not be elected president because he isn’t geared for popularity contests. That is why he lost the 1998 presidential elections and so did a dozen other candidates in Philippine history who would have made brilliant presidents. I do not blame ignorant
masa. Philippine society is a manipulated society because leaders who should know better do not exercise leadership. The
masa would follow this leadership. That same leadership made it possible to conclude that the politician is to be condemned but not the philandering moron. That guarantees a soft state and a government vulnerable to machinations of vested interests. The false assumptions in 1998 have been reactivated to frustrate constitutional reform. Those who successfully got Erap elected are back with a vengeance calling JDV names. The trouble is JDV is vulnerable given that he has had to operate within the framework of old politics engendered by the presidential system we have had for years and want to reform. This makes for a difficult dilemma. But civil society’s Coalition for Constitutional Change Now (CCCN) opted to work with him because he alone showed the determination to bring about political reforms so badly needed by this country.
I used to think it was the question of mode that was being debated. CCCN marshalled all the reasons for constituent assembly to amend the 1987 Constitution. But it was in vain. For many months this column also tried to wrestle with the issues of modality but I came to the conclusion that it was not mode that was the question. It was constitutional reform itself. Through time, this opinion has been reinforced with discussions with recalcitrant senators who claim ‘they are for constitutional convention ‘. Some of the senators concerned were presidential or vice-presidential hopefuls and they made no bones about it – they were against constitutional reform because it comes in the way of their personal ambitions. The public is not being told that. They are for con-con is the stock answer because that is publicly acceptable. But privately, the senators will tell you the presidential system is just fine despite all the evidence against it.. "Besides why should we eliminate ourselves?" the senators ask.
I say categorically here and now that we either have a constituent assembly to bring about constitutional change or we don’t. If we do not amend the 1987 Constitution through constituent assembly, forget it. We will never have the political reforms envisioned. I’ll tell you why. Because, there is a flaw in the heart of the argument for Con-con that its proponents do not wish to face or acknowledge. It is this:
the kind of elections we will have for delegates is shackled from the start given the structure of Philippine politics and government. Those who propose con-con reinforce the very defects we are trying to reform. In time and in theory perhaps a constitutional convention can be advocated. As it is, the proponents of Con-con cannot justify their advocacy with a largely ignorant electorate and an entrenched oligarchy resolved to keep the status quo.
We need to change the Constitution because the way we elect our officials is wrong whether for delegates or officials. Con-con proponents conveniently forget that under the present system, we can only hope to have more of the same kind of ‘politicians’ they claim they deride and we will be spending billions just to do so, money so desperately needed even for basic government services. Where is the patriotism in that? We will never get the right officials or delegates through popularity and money contests. Indeed, history will show that fraudulent elections is the single most important factor that denied so many able patriots to serve their country. They are barred by the very system that the "good" guys do not want changed.
E-mail:
cpedrosa@edsamail.com.ph