Mendacity in the Senate

When you read in the newspapers that the Senate has no more time to debate constitutional reform, don’t believe it. Go to the Senate on Roxas Boulevard and see for yourself to know what they mean there is no more time. If the senators were more serious about their work they would put the issue ahead of all else. We would not need a miracle to get it done. All it needs is the will to do so.

The senators deemed it more urgent to talk about their pet concerns. At the time I was there, Sen. Sotto, the comedian and one of the prime movers of FPJ for president discussed regulations on optical media – i.e, – videograms while Sen. Serge Osmeña discussed the PDIC charter. This is the senator who threatened to talk about sex on the floor as he filibustered to get the committee chairmanship for banking and finance. The session was scheduled at 3 o’clock but it was at 4:15 that a roll call was made. I may not know about rules in the Senate but common sense tells me something is wrong when the most important item in the agenda is tackled last and then for the chief sponsor of the resolution to say there is no more time.

The resolution calling for a convention was finally taken up by Angara and Barbers in the first interpellations. Barbers reminded the body Angara and himself filed Res. No. 13 for a constituent assembly as far back as January 30, 2003. Has Angara changed his mind? He replied no. He has advocated for parliamentary system since 1971 and for constituent assembly to get it done but majority of the members of his committee were for "convention", so he followed them. Barbers pressed him if a shift to parliament was urgent. Mr. Angara said, "Absolutely, Mr. President, time is of the essence…we have really lost valuable time since the committee submitted the report three months ago."

Barbers asked Angara if he had any proposal to shorten the time to elect delegates to a convention. This is the most crucial part of the exchange and it gives a clue what is really happening in Congress. Angara said, "If this outgoing Congress decides to pursue constitutional change through constitutional convention, I would rather that we wait for the next Congress to make that proposal. I think a constitutional convention entails more preparation than a constituent assembly."

Surprisingly, he explained a "constituent assembly is almost an instant institution because the delegates, composed of senators and congressmen, are in place, their staff are in place, the research capabililty is intact, whereas, we will have to practically reconstruct a new infrastructure to support a constitutional convention…" He accepted the election of delegates simultaneously in May 2004 would save millions. It will cost only P709 million while a separate one will cost P2.3 billion.

Angara regretted the committee report was not taken up when it was submitted last July. On the country’s difficult financial situation and how synchronization would save money, he said the matter be left to the incoming administration. There was a long discussion on the merits of parliamentary system and this was desired by Filipino founding fathers since the Malolos Republic. Surprisingly Angara also said the present system has not served us well, making us "the poorest in an ocean of prosperous countries." More discussions took place on the nature and virtues of parliamentary system but in the end it was clear the Senate was more concerned what would happen to them whether elected in 2001 or 2004.

Angara did not think the 12 new senators would be happy to shorten their term to only three years. He returned again and again that only a new administration could tackle the issue of senatorial terms.(I am not surprised since Angara and Sotto are the main movers of an FPJ presidency.) Otherwise, he said, there would be a danger that what they do now for constitutional reform would be effected only in 2010."By that time – 2010 – the Philippines would have 100 million people. Our social problems would be so formidable I think no form of government can ever cure the social ills and perhaps even the political problems we should have by that time."At this point, Mr. Filibusterer himself, Serge Osmeña cut short the discussions and asked, how long it would take for them to finish. Are they changing the Constitution now? he asked sarcastically.

Sen. Joker Arroyo accuses President GMA for deceiving Noli de Castro, choosing him as her vice-president at the same time that she is for constitutional change at the earliest possible time. This is a half truth. Joker is against constitutional change so he does not bother to find out or suggest transitory provisions in the shift from presidential to parliamentary. Why do people like him refuse debate on constitutional reform at the same time that they misinform the public? That’s cute. It is not up to GMA but a con-con or consa to set out the transitory provision for the shift. The position of the vice-president will obviously be tackled then, not now.

My nephew-in-law, Tim Groseclose, a professor of politics in Stanford, sent me an excerpt from The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton suggested a mode for electing the president other than a direct one man, one vote on March 14, 1788. He might as well have addressed Filipinos in 2004. The election of a president must be placed in competent hands through a selection of electors. Here’s what Hamilton said: "It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducement which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information discernment requisite to such complicated investigation." That’s still how Americans select their president to this day and gives lie to any accusation that this is undemocratic. No, it is not undemocratic, it is just sane.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]