Friday’s headline on SWS giving 70 percent for con-con and 72 percent for presidential system does not tell the whole story. The findings are a month old having been conducted from May 28 to June 14. This was not released. Dr. Jose Abueva, a staunch advocate for Con-con sits on the board of SWS. Dr. Mahar Mangahas, on the other hand was aware that advocates of Consa had commissioned a survey from June 26 to July 3. SWS were about to release findings which showed a dramatic rise in favor of constituent assembly and shift from presidential to parliamentary that would in effect contradict the findings of the May 28-June 14 .
The latest SWS survey indicates that 34 percent want a shift to parliament, while 43 per cent approved regional governments. On the mode, 41 per cent favored a convention and 27 percent a constituent assembly. A large 32 per cent declared either mode is ‘aceptable’.So why did SWS release a month-old survey just as it was about also to release findings on the shift for Consa and Parliamentary? That is for Messrs. Mangahas and Abueva to explain. I hope the reasons are not malicious but the inference of the timing of the release of a month-old SWS findings on what they call an uncommissioned survey at the same time that they were about to release contrary findings in a more recent survey, leaves much to be desired about the professionalism of SWS.
My own interpretation of the SWS release of month old findings is to undermine their own recent findings. But who is going to explain this to the public? There was an attempt to preempt survey results showing a neck to neck race between partisans of the modes and subtance of the constitutional changes being advocated with Consa speeding ahead from month to month. The Friday SWS was directed towards less informed sections of the public as well as to a Senate still making up its mind. The article advanced the Mangahas and Abueva opinion that "time is running out Consa proponents because Congress has only three to four months at most from August to debate and approve its proposal to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary."
Abueva, an author of the 1987 Constitution failed to add that the entire 1987 Constitution was cobbled in four months while the amendments being sought have been under study for years now. He himself is part of a study group hammering out the proposed amendments. During the first public hearing of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Abueva categorically stated he did not really mind whichever mode it would be but if by constituent assembly he asked that provision be made for inputs from civic society which he and many others have already been doing for months now.
At least two civil society groups will be submitting in the next few days their recommendations to the House and Senate Committees. The 1987 Constitution is not being revamped. The changes cover shift from presidential to parliamentary and firm commitment to Federalism at least in ten years. On economic provisions, the CCCN has proposed that these be kept as in the 1987 Constitution with a proviso that these be left to Parliament to allow flexibility so necessary in the world economic climate today.
Why there is no alternative to Charter Change Now (Part 2). – "There are those opposed to charter-change who claim the ills of our country are not in the Constitution but in the people themselves because Filipinos are difficult to govern. They should go to a foreign country where Filipino workers reside to see how law-abiding and cooperative OFWs are.
– The real danger many national leaders still don’t recognize is that the country is on track towards Latin-Americanization or worse, Africanization, unless the Charter is amended ASAP. Let there be no doubt about it. The Philippines is on a spin towards the political turmoil and economic quagmire some Latin-American countries have fallen into. God forbid that our country would go the way of Liberia.
– Look at Venezuela, despite enormous petroleum resources the country is unraveling. Venezuela like the Philippines has a presidential system with President Hugo Chavez both head of state and government since February 1999. - The country has a population of only 25 million less than a third of the Philippines but three times the land area. With a stable oil price accounting for 80 percent of export earnings and over 50 percent of government revenues, Venezuela was able to rebound in 1999 from a steep recession spun by the Asian contagion.
– Continued capital flight and a weak non-oil sector undercut the recovery. In early 2002, with mounting budget deficit and heavy debt burden, Chavez decided to change the exchange rate from a crawling peg to a free exchange pushing the Bolivar (the country’s currency) to rapidly depreciate.
– Government and large businesses saddled with massive debts opted to retrench deeply. This led to spiraling inflation, mass lay-offs and deterioration of basic services causing unrest that culminated in street demonstrations.
– The situation worsened when an opposition group in the National Assembly (also separated from the executive branch like our Congress) took advantage of the unrest. The political opposition allied with street demonstrators and began asking Chavez to step down (reminiscent of EDSA I and EDSA II but with violent incidents). The situation has stabilized meanwhile but for how long is anybody’s guess.
– One thing is certain, though, if Venezuela had a parliamentary government and Chavez was Prime Minister, policies would have been collectively decided in Parliament and, if they led to unrest, rectified fast by the ruling party or coalition. Moreover, the unrest would not have been exacerbated by antagonism between Chavez and opposition leaders in the National Assembly, some of whom may be aspiring to replace him.
– In our case worse signs are all around in the proliferation of squatter shanties and homelessness in urban areas, acute unemployment, teenage girls driven to prostitution, rising crime rates and growing insurgency in the face of a ballooning budget deficit because of shortfalls in revenue collection. All of which point to one conclusion, the presidential system can no longer cope with the country’s problems.
– If the issues were not muddled by personal preference or ambition of people eyeing the presidency or vice presidency, charter-change can be done expeditiously this year. It doesn’t seem to occur to those aspiring to be President or Vice President that if the Charter were not amended soon, their place in history would be no better or maybe worse than Marcos.
– To wait another year to address the Constitution’s basic flaw might be too late. Could anybody have predicted President Estrada would be toppled in only thirty months after garnering the biggest margin of victory in the history of Philippine presidential election? Cuba’s President Batista was hosting a New Year Eve’s party in Havana when Fidel Castro and his revolutionary army took over, sending the elite and powerful Cubans scampering to find transportation to the US, Mexico and South American countries.
– It is time to try the parliamentary system, which has been successful in India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand now, not next year or the year thereafter.
– Those who say charter-change through a Concon is better make no sense in view of limited time, ballooning budget deficit and the possibility that a Concon would continue for several years resulting in an entirely new Constitution no better than the one existing. The 1971 Concon accomplished nothing in two years and its work was only finished in 1973 after Marcos prodded the delegates to approve a Charter fashioned to his needs.
– Amending the Charter through Consa is the most practical and expeditious in view of the budget deficit. A Concon could cost up to P8 billion (if it could finish its work in a year) vis-à-vis the Consa which would cost not much more than what Congress spends for the same period of time to deliberate and agree on the passage of bills.
– The argument that politicians would dominate the Consa is another
non sequitur. The 1971 Concon showed that excluding politicians from being delegates was ephemeral. The majority of the delegates turned out to have their own political agendas if they were not the wives, children and other relatives of politicians.
– The most important argument for urgently amending the Charter and shifting to the parliamentary system is the sputtering Philippine economy. Economic growth that creates jobs and spurs progress depends on the speed at which the government initiates
effective (or rectifies
erroneous) policies and programs that jumpstart development projects.
– Our country’s biggest problem is the turtle-pace that government does its business that causes many other problems. Bureaucratic shakedowns occur in almost all phases of governance such as in paying taxes, awarding contracts and collecting the bills, obtaining business licenses, clearing goods through Customs and getting anything approved.
– All of the above creates a chain reaction of delays that dampen investments, constrict productive activities causing national output to fall and hamper job creation. The result is an erosion of the tax base and revenue shortfalls. Revamping the BIR and BOC every other month will be of no consequence when the government is creating bottlenecks to constrict national output.
– Policies, programs, rules and regulations, etc. that govern our national life multiply with confusing frequency in every new administration or change of office head under the same administration, creating impediments that are transformed into opportunities for graft and corruption in almost all offices and courts of law including private business.
– Other Asian countries were also devastated in WW II and suffered more than the Philippines from the 1997 Asian crisis. The Philippines couldn’t keep in step with their fast recovery and was again left behind in economic growth in which our country was second only to Japan in 1965.
– No Filipino will admit a Malaysian or Thai is better in his love of country, education and work ethics. But economic facts do not lie. Malaysia and Thailand have taken off and are firmly ahead of the Philippines in economic growth and per capita income. They can attribute this to no advantage better than the speed at which a parliamentary government runs vis-à-vis the presidential system we have.
– It should be instructive for those opposed to charter-change that studies of several American think tanks have shown that the USA would have been better off today under a parliamentary system. They claim with facts and figures that the USA would have been more politically robust, economically advanced and militarily powerful if its Founding Fathers were not averse to the parliamentary system due to their dislike for the British.
– It is no less true that our 1987 Constitution is flawed because of a dislike for Marcos of most members of President Corazon Aquino’s Constitutional Commission. Like the US Constitutional Convention that avoided what could be British, the Concom prevented any provision in our Charter including a shift to parliamentary system if it might bring about a slight resemblance to the Marcos regime.
– In trying to stop another Marcos but re-imposing the presidential system, the Concom didn’t recognize that the damage caused by Marcos would linger on and exacerbated by the election of unqualified but popular candidates like President Estrada and others now aspiring to be President.
– With our national life going the way it is, every administration is bound to exacerbate the debilitation caused by Marcos unless the presidential system is discarded and we shift to a parliamentary government. The country’s foreign debt was less than $30 billion in 1986 when Mrs. Aquino took over. The BSP and DOF recently reported it has reached $55 billion. Like a taximeter gone haywire, our foreign debt continues to mount while Finance Secretary Jose Isidro Camacho seems to be still relying on his formula of what is a safe borrowing limit as a percent of GDP.
– Had the same situation happened in Singapore or Malaysia, Camacho would be faced with no-confidence motion in Parliament and be forced to resign if there was the slightest chance Lee Kuan Yew or Mahathir Mohamad would ever nominate him to the post.
The disadvantages of the presidential system are glaring in the length of time it takes a bill to become law, confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of presidential appointees, and to rectify or discard enabling laws for erroneous policies and programs. Wrong policies result when a group that supported the election of a President and some members of Congress would ram special-interest legislation despite the adverse effects on the majority of the people.
– Under a unicameral Parliament, a bill does not pass the Senate and the bicameral conference committee better known as the third House of Congress. Neither has the President a veto power. A Cabinet appointee does not have to submit to the Commission on Appointments where members extract favors from a nominee before he is confirmed.
– When disagreements on important bills arise between the Senate and the House, then between Congress and the President, the opportunity lost is sufficient for development projects to take roots and ensure their success with resources available if the enabling laws were approved on time. Gridlock in Congress due to disagreement among members on pet bills often squanders opportunities that could enhance the lives of millions of poor Filipinos. Note that such disagreement occurs in the House and repeated in the Senate . . . to look to solutions." (End of report).
If the single most important attribute of the present presidential system is the election of unqualified leaders, then it is not the election of delegates that will ensure the passage of amendments of the 1987 Constitution.. The challenge is to secure reforms within what the Constitution allows and that can only be done by constituent assembly. The notion that we cannot trust Congress is at best a diversionary tactic. If we cannot trust Congress then we should just discard government and descend into anarchy.
E-mail:
[email protected] 
