The right reasons

When the "great debate" over Charter change starts, proponents should make sure they will dance the Cha-cha for the right reasons.

The best way to kill this initiative is to give the impression that it is meant merely to benefit certain individuals. That was why the Cha-cha initiative during the Ramos administration failed; its main objective was clearly to perpetuate Fidel Ramos in power.

And if senators oppose constitutional amendments, they should also do so for the right reasons. They cannot say no simply out of self-preservation, since there are many people who think abolishing that chamber will go a long way in reducing the deficit and lowering the volume of political noise.

* * *

The Constitution must be dynamic and we should not be scared to introduce amendments periodically to make the basic law of the land more responsive to the times.

The forces of people power called it the Freedom Constitution in those heady months after the 1986 EDSA revolt. You can see the Charter’s focus on making sure there will be no return to authoritarian rule. Several of its transitory provisions were meant to make the Marcoses and their cronies account for the abuses of the regime, including the return of ill-gotten wealth.

Much has happened since the ratification of the Constitution in 1987. Rapid advances in information and communication technology, porous borders and the opening of markets have changed the way the world does business. Some countries adapted quickly to the forces of globalization while others, notably the Philippines, are laggards.

There are provisions in the Constitution that impede the nation’s competitiveness in a global economy. Those provisions must be rewritten. These changes are urgent if we want to catch up with our neighbors, which are increasingly drawing investments away from the Philippines.

At least one constitutional provision, which has been used as justification by the military to withdraw support from a duly elected president and commander-in-chief, needs careful review if we truly want to end adventurism and develop professionalism in the military.

The overhaul of the electoral system can start with amendments in the Charter.

We have to decide if the provision calling for an end to political dynasties should remain in the Charter as decoration – one of many best-efforts pledges that are never meant to be fulfilled.

Finally we must decide what we want to do with our political system.

* * *

And this is where the great debate will be trickiest.

Is changing the form of government the answer to our problems?

Some bishops – like almost all sectors of our dysfunctional society, they can’t seem to speak with one voice — have harrumphed that what we need is a change in values, not system of government. Well, the bishops should take some of the blame for that. If they did a better job of shepherding their flock on matters of the spirit, Filipinos would have proper values and the national moral compass would point in the right direction.

One argument for a shift to a parliamentary system is that it will reduce the chances of a poorly informed electorate picking the nation’s top officials based mainly on popularity. The argument is that whatever you say about the quality of people we keep electing to Congress, the cream does manage to rise, and lawmakers are unlikely to pick an incompetent clown as prime minister simply because he looks great on TV or is a FAMAS Hall of Famer.

To be blunt about it, the shift hopes to stop the propensity of Filipinos to vote for people like Joseph Estrada, Ramon Revilla, Robert Jaworski and, so sorry to say, Noli de Castro.

Another argument is that shifting to a unicameral system will end the perennial legislative gridlock. This has resonance in a nation that is often appalled by the antics of the two dozen independent republics sitting at the Senate, almost all of whom think they should be the one ensconced at Malacañang rather than whoever is the incumbent.

When senators brush aside proposals to amend the Constitution, they should have a better reason other than the obvious one – self-preservation. They can all run for seats in a unicameral legislature. Perhaps each one should be asked to explain his opposition to the proposal.

* * *

There is a precedent for senators giving up the old system in the name of public interest. In the United States, senators agreed to the 17th amendment to their constitution, which was passed on April 8, 1913. The amendment provided for the direct election of senators rather than their selection by the state legislature. The old system bred corruption in the selection process and triggered such bitter political feuds that states sometimes had no senators for four years running.

Of course that’s in the United States, where candidates know how to lose gracefully, even if the voting is so close victory has to be settled by the Supreme Court.

The average Philippine politician, on the other hand, suffers from arrested development; he is a self-indulgent individual who views the world through his navel. He is, sadly, a reflection of Philippine society, where self-sacrifice for the greater good is an alien concept.

If Cha-cha ever hurdles opposition from senators, there are other concerns, foremost of which is whether a parliamentary system will lead to more political instability.

In Japan, prime ministers used to be thrown out by the Diet at the drop of a hat, but the nation absorbed the shock because of its professional bureaucracy — something that is sorely lacking in our country. The current Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, has lasted longer than most, keeping his seat for several years now.

Cha-cha proponents will still have to decide which type of parliament will be used as a model by the Philippines. Will we have a strong president, like France, or a strong prime minister? Will a president be retained?

The proposed shift to federalism must also be factored in. But this will have to be thought out carefully, because if this is just a battle for control over development funds, any experiment in federalism will fail.

There are many good arguments for Charter change, and it is unfortunate that it is being seen mainly as a graceful exit for a beleaguered President. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could in fact find a face-saving exit through Cha-cha, but whatever she stands to gain must be seen merely as incidental to the need to amend the Constitution.

If Cha-cha is pushed for the right reasons, even Senate opposition can be overcome.