Wasting time

Recently resigned Secretary of Finance Isidro Camacho, a stalwart of the Arroyo administration, finally came out with a statement we all know but do not want to face: "Our political system...is not equipped to deal with this kind of problem." He talks of impossibility. Problems happen everywhere and everytime but these must be solvable within a political framework. Not so in this country. With some 900 bills including revenue-raising measures already passed by the House languishing in the Senate it raises the question whether we are better off with a unicameral legislature.

This state of things can drive any sensible person to the wall but not it seems senators too busy with investigations and politicking. As if that is not enough they have also refused to debate a joint resolution on constitutional change. Whether it is for convention which the Senate claims it is, or the House which has overwhelmingly approved a constituent assembly, I believe and most Filipinos will agree with me, that it is wrong for senators to claim they have no time for it. There ought to be a law against such arrogance which in effect is a dereliction of duty. If there is no law against that, then we should create the law. We talk about impeaching wayward executive officials, why not derelict legislators? Senators take the electorate for granted. I may not be a constitutional expert but there is something wrong if elected senators who choose not to do its job should be allowed to get away with it.

Constitutional law experts will do the citizenry a favor by looking into the behavior of the Senate in the face of the nation’s difficulties. What about parliamentary courtesy? Or have we allowed the country to be dictated upon by senators who are concerned only with their private and political interests? I hear that local authority, from governors down to barangay officials, who are squarely behind constitutional change are up in arms. It is as if the entire nation is being held hostage by the Senate’s arrogance. They are not even asked to approve the proposed amendments, but only to open the debate, a legislative duty, on the mode to be employed, whether by convention or by constituent assembly. In this regard the Senate rather than the House is to be blamed. Despite individual members’ shortcomings, members of the House have at least passed the necessary bills under the leadership of Speaker Jose de Venecia. Why couldn’t the Senate do the same thing? They were elected to make laws not use the Senate for grandstanding or politicking.

We face bankruptcy, the senators do not care. For the fiscal situation to improve, Mr. Camacho says, the government should focus on improving tax collection. In particular, Congress must act on a number of tax reforms. For one, Philippine tax on imported products, including petroleum, has been among the lowest in the region, he said. "We have to increase the taxes on several industries."

So with such problems, why are we wasting our time, choosing between presidential candidates? Whoever is elected, learned or ignorant, good or bad, will have to face the same problems unless we restructure the political system. I know some opposition senators who feel strongly about constitutional reform but are caught in the vortex of politics for the presidential elections on May 2004. It is disappointing to see schooled and relatively intelligent men like former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and Senator Edgardo Angara pushing for the candidacy of a know-nothing movie actor for his winnability.

The chorus of hysterics over the winnability of candidates is both comic and shocking. May 2004 will not solve anything because we are not addressing the problem – the present structure of government does not lend itself to good governance. Whether we elect a no-nothing actor or a learned economist we will only keep the vicious cycle going until the country is bankrupt and prostrate, if it is not already. Why another presidential elections, if it is accepted both by the administration and the opposition, that we have to shift to unicameral parliamentary federal.

My own view is the last card belongs to citizenry if the country is to be saved from peril. We should not allow the politicization of constitutional reform by sacrificing it to another presidential elections. The legislative debate on the issue should begin now and a plebiscite held in the May 2004 presidential elections for the approval of the people. The country’s welfare should not be left to the mercy of an arrogant Senate. If the people vote no, then it will be business as usual and if they vote yes then the reforms are immediately enforced with provisions being made for the new president and vice president in a parliamentary set-up. Both houses should then be dissolved and election of members of parliament be held.

The point of departure for debate on change in our political landscape lies deep in our history. It has to do with our struggle for independence. The past has a way of overreaching into the future even if events have long past. It is ironic that those who consider themselves nationalists are prolonging that unfinished debate on what is good for Filipinos or what is preferred by the Americans. Suffice it to say there is documentary proof that the first Filipino politicians were for parliamentary government and the Americans insisted on a presidential system. Constitutional reform is not about being anti or pro American but whether Filipinos can see the issue in the perspective of our epic struggle for independence. I like especially what the late intellectual giant, Claro M. Recto said, "Now that we have been freed by the declaration of our independence from schoolboy complexes and political misgivings that retained the Convention, the Filipino people may soberly consider the system which another democractic tradition, of equal validity and certainly of greater maturity than the American, has followed to harness the power of government to the will of the people.. I have been attracted lately to the parliamentary system, it has been due principally to this characteristic of immediate responsibility." The intervening years between that impetus and the politics that subsequently developed under the presidential system is a chasm. We cannot blame Americans if we mismanaged our politics but it must be said they paved the way for it by foisting the presidential system on the colony that they were about to set free at least formally.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]