Time to tinker

As the great debate on charter change gathers momentum, I believe it is time for all citizens or, at any rate, those who feel they have enough information to form an opinion, to decide which side they will argue.

Right off the bat, the debaters will realize that we don’t have just two sides here, that which argues for constitutional amendments and that which is totally opposed to any tinkering with our organic law, now or ever. As it turns out, there are shades of pro and permutations of con.

For example, among those in favor of charter changes, there are those who agree with a constituent assembly to effect those changes, but others who insist on a constitutional convention. Some are in favor of a parliamentary-federal system of government, others bat for a presidential-federal system, still others a parliamentary-unitary system.

Some want a unicameral parliament, others are convinced a Philippine parliament must continue to be bicameral, with a separate Senate composed of Senators elected by region rather than at large.

There are those who are against charter change not because they disagree that our Constitution needs amending, but because cha-cha is an alleged ploy on the part of the GMA administration to distract the nation from the central issue of whether she cheated in the last elections.

A variation of this theory is that the administration will make sure the impeachment process goes nowhere in the House. The majority is allegedly entangling the opposition in all manner of procedural technicalities. Cha-cha is meant to divert public attention away from impeachment and toward a more divisive controversy.

Naturally, many contend that the Constitution should not be tinkered with at all. The case has not been made, they claim, that there is anything wrong with the 1987 Constitution or the system of government it established. Our Constitution has not failed us, we have simply not given it a chance to work.

In this great debate, none of us should sit on the fence or, worse, ignore it altogether. We all have an opportunity to participate in an historic activity, perhaps even dictate the course of our future.

My view is this: I think it is time to "tinker" with our Constitution. I am convinced that the presidential cum bicameral legislature system does not work for this country. While I favor greater and constitutionally-mandated autonomy for local governments, I must confess I’m not prepared to subscribe totally to federalism. However, I remain open-minded and have resolved to educate myself better on this issue.

I am for a unicameral legislature, without qualifications or concessions to incumbent Senators, except to allow those with term balances to complete their tenures as members of parliament. Thereafter, I believe that all members of parliament should be elected by voters in their constituencies. We should do away with sectoral members of the legislature, and reject any idea of additional members appointed by political parties in proportion to the votes garnered in the previous elections.

Instead, we should increase the number of districts in accordance with population distribution, by another 100 to 150. Smaller districts will mean better representation of constituents and accountability on the part of the members of parliament. But the more important objective of increasing the number of electoral districts, and decreasing the number of votes needed to win, is to reduce the costs of running for and winning seats in parliament. We shall explore this matter more as the debate focuses on a new legislature.

Naturally, reform is critical in our system of elections, as well as in the organization of the Commission on Elections. This is one of most conspicuous flaws of the proposal for a constitutional convention. With all the defects of that electoral system and the deficiencies of the Comelec, and except for some metropolitan areas, the delegates to the convention are likely to come from local political dynasties.

I am also in favor of reviewing the economic provisions of the charter in order to enhance the competitive position of the country vis-à-vis our Asian neighbors. Further, among the reforms needed in the judiciary should be a reconsideration of the expansion of the powers of the Supreme Court. The 1987 Constitution allowed a review of the actions of "any branch or instrumentality" of government "for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction". We will expand on these views in future columns.

As for a con-ass vs. a con-con, I must confess an original inclination for a constitutional convention. Part of that, of course, had to do with past fears about not trusting the congressmen with such a potent weapon as amending our Constitution. Like many, I too feared a removal of term limits or the theft of a couple more years in office by the simple expedient of postponing elections until the charter changes were adopted.

Today, however, I think circumstances have changed and that a constituent assembly is a better idea. The way some people argue against it, one would think that a con-ass is an inherently undesirable process. But let’s not forget that the 1987 Constitution expressly provides for amendments proposed by Congress acting as a constituent assembly. Arguably, the Constitution acknowledges that a constituent assembly may be advisable in certain instances.

This, I submit, for many reasons, is one of those times. It’s not only the difference in costs, P900,000,000 against P9 billion according to Senator Ed Angara, or the chance that the needed changes can be adopted much earlier. Briefly, it’s the urgency of getting fundamental solutions in place to respond to seemingly intractable problems.

With all the paeans paid to our present charter by the opponents of cha-cha, with all the brickbats and prophecies of doom they hurl at the proponents of cha-cha, what do the guardians of the inviolability of the current Constitution have to show for this cherished document, other than unfulfilled expectations and dashed hopes?