^

Opinion

Constitutional change is a candidate

FROM A DISTANCE - FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen Pedrosa -
Karl Popper, the great guru of modern democracy based his teachings on an understanding of the basic principles of knowledge — what we can know and what we cannot know. In politics, it implies if we cannot predict if an elected president no matter how many promises he or she makes will be good. We are in surer ground if we were instead to reject candidates who would make not only a bad president but would endanger democracy. The same theory of knowledge applies to our approach to constitutional reform. Instead of hesitating on constitutional change because we do not know whether a parliamentary system will work, we should base our decision on the known fact that presidential system does not work for us.

In a recent press forum with other panelists, two of whom were publishers, all agreed we need constitutional change before we can talk of an economic take-off. The chair of the forum asked if there was any achievement that could be credited to President GMA. As an advocate of new politics under a unicameral parliamentary federal government it made no sense to discuss the personal qualities of candidates. It would be accepting the electoral system that is destroying the country. In assessing Mrs. Arroyo’s administration, the issue was continuity. When she took over the reins of government after a failed Erap regime despite all her faults, she ensured the country’s stability. I remember her saying she would not aim to be heroic or exceptional, she just wanted to do a job well.

She has brought us safely to shore. But doing a good job or being diligent is just not enough. I do not know of any thinking Filipino who can honestly say the May 2004 elections will be good for the country. On the contrary, they see it as a derangement. It does not speak well of leadership of this country and this is not only the president but the collective leadership – parties, politicians, religious and military – who are bent on continuing with elections despite this knowledge.

Governors and mayors who are closer to the people agree the only way to prevent a disaster is to shift to unicameral parliamentary government and elect members of parliament in 2004. There are many who are not able or will not choose among the candidates because they are aware that whoever gets elected will merely continue the system.There is no choice as far as they are concerned. But they want change, real change for the Philippines. The answer is constitutional change now. We should not elect a president at large because it is no elections at all. It is a popularity contest, name recall or worse, paid votes. Good governance is not the issue of the elections.

The most important part of the Constitution is the preamble which clearly states the people are sovereign yet that is not what is happening now or in 2004. We will sink deeper into the mire of government whose national officials, once elected, are more interested in furthering their personal fortune than to serve the best interest of the people. We vote for officials who become an untouchable class. They govern according to their political and economic interests. So why vote at all if this is what May 2004 is all about?

On the other hand, if we vote for a man or woman we know as a member of parliament in a limited area and populace , we are on to saner politics, based on the capacity to govern. Parliamentary government is adapted in most countries because it is more accountable to real people, not a national election of popular movie stars or broadcasters because of name recall. Those who know better owe it to the masses so they understand change is the answer to a better life.

We deceive ourselves if we think the best man or woman who wins can turn the country around given the environment he or she will function. We got the whole issue upside down. Instead of implementing constitutional reform so we avoid the pitfalls of still another flawed election, we are demanding that this flawed election take place first before we implement constitutional reform.

I sympathize with senators I hold in high esteem especially Sen. Angara who seems to have changed his mind. He has had to swallow the very words he used when he wrote the bill in support of constitutional change."The presidency is some sort of an elected monarchy that can run roughshod over the traditional and sacred principles of check and balance and public accountability. When we start finding the roots of the state of anarchy and the fragility of the country’s vital democratic institutions, we only find one thing: the irresponsiveness and the irrelevance of the present institutions. These weak and and irresponsive institutions have only spawned and abetted bad leaders and unresponsive policies. The time is ripe to look at this rigid constitutional arrangement in the eye and stand it on its head."
* * *
Letter. From Elmer D. Aguilar <[email protected] attached a declaration of principles in amending the 1987 Constitution in a letter addressed to senators. He believes the Constitution needs updating in the light of past developments. He does not believe that convention is the only way to amend or revise the present constitution. Both Houses of Congress can agree on the voting provided in the Constitution – is the "three-fourths of all the Members" provision to be interpreted that each house shall vote separately requiring a three-fourth of the votes for each house? Since this maybe a justiciable issue the Supreme Court can be requested to decide on the matter. Half of the senators still have the sovereign mandate of the Filipino voters to serve for the balance of three years. That should be respected by the two houses, a transitory provision should be agreed at the start on what to do with these twelve senators if a unicameral legislature is adopted. If members of Congress can address these questions, a Constituent Assembly or series of Constituent Assemblies can be the mode to amend or revise the present Constitution. In this manner the objection that a Constitutional Convention is expensive will be avoided.

E-mail is [email protected]

vuukle comment

BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS

CHANGE

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLIES

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

FROM ELMER D

KARL POPPER

MRS. ARROYO

SUPREME COURT

  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with