Dancing the Cha-cha

Proponents of constitutional amendments, especially those pushing for a shift to a parliamentary system, should be careful about linking the initiative to the political fortunes of President Arroyo.

The Constitution could use amendments, mainly to make the country more competitive in a global economy. Debates over some of the economic provisions that may be amended will be contentious enough. Proposals for political reforms are bound to be even more controversial. And debates will be most contentious over the shift to a parliamentary system, which is likely to cut short the term of President Arroyo.

Charter change proponents should make it clear that the Constitution is being amended to make the basic law of the land more responsive to a rapidly changing world, and not simply to resolve a political crisis.

If Charter change is seen chiefly as a graceful exit for the President, who continues to be hounded by unresolved accusations of vote rigging, there could be strong public resistance to Cha-cha.

Any effect on the political fate of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo must be merely incidental to a larger effort to implement reforms.

* * *

In the first place, you can sense the resistance of Malacañang to anything that might shorten the term of its current occupant.

Both the Palace and Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. have confirmed that he and former President Fidel Ramos met last week with President Arroyo to discuss Charter change and Ramos’ purported coup plot, among other things.

No one has denied that during the meeting, the President expressed readiness to go along with parliamentary elections in 2007, if an amended Constitution is ratified next year. That’s one year longer than the timetable proposed by Ramos, which is probably why he has kept silent on the details of the private meeting.

In recent weeks Ramos has publicly shown growing impatience over the pace of Cha-cha. While he has not called for the President’s outright resignation, he has suggested in public that she make a personal sacrifice for the nation by cutting short her term.

De Venecia, ever the politician, has been more conciliatory. He can sense the panic of administration allies and has announced that the President can stay on, with undiminished powers, until the end of her term in 2010 even if Cha-cha leads to a shift in the form of government.

If opposition members keep up the pressure on the President to come clean on vote-rigging and other accusations, a shift to a parliamentary system could in fact serve as a graceful exit for her.

But this must be seen merely as a possible offshoot of Charter change. It should not be perceived as the main purpose of amending the Constitution.

* * *

People are questioning the wisdom even of shifting to a parliamentary system. If we have the same clowns in parliament, will it guarantee political stability if they are given the responsibility of picking the head of government? The thought of changing prime ministers every three months is a nightmare.

Proponents of the shift, on the other hand, point out that in a country with a large segment of uninformed voters, this could put a stop to the election of a head of government based chiefly on popularity.

The idea is tantalizing in a country that has had a surfeit of incompetent entertainment personalities entering politics, wasting taxpayers’ money and aggravating the national mess.

This is not subverting the popular will, since members of parliament will be directly elected by the people.

The presumption is that the people’s elected representatives know each other better and will not pick an incompetent colleague as head of government. And the presumption is that there will be safeguards against changing prime ministers three times a year.

One proposed amendment that is meeting little public resistance is the abolition of the Senate. For all the titillating, headline-grabbing revelations in endless Senate probes, the chamber is still largely perceived as a non-performer that merely wastes precious public funds. Those juicy revelations can just as easily be made by calling a press conference. The Senate is supposed to pass laws, and it has been remiss in its job.

Speeding up legislation is a good argument for shifting to a unicameral parliament.

* * *

Charter change is not the answer to our problems, but if done right, it can cure many ills and improve our chances of competing in the international arena.

The Constitution was rewritten in 1986 and ratified in 1987 when the nation was preoccupied with making sure there would be no return to authoritarian rule. Freedom is written all over the Constitution, and efforts to dismantle the machinery of the dictatorship are evident particularly in the transitory provisions.

In the past 18 years we have seen how some of those provisions can be given bizarre interpretations and abused.

In the past 18 years we have also seen dizzying changes around the world, and our glaring inability to cope and compete. Just as we have started swallowing the bitter pill of the expanded value-added tax, we will need courage to amend certain protectionist policies enshrined in our Constitution if we want a share of the investments that are being soaked up by countries such as China and Thailand.

We need a clearer definition of the powers of the judiciary, whose intervention in business matters is seen as a disincentive by investors.

The system of recall for elective positions must be reviewed, as well as the party-list system. We must decide whether that provision against political dynasties is in the Constitution merely for decoration or as a joke.

The constitutional provision invoked to justify the Armed Forces’ intervention in political matters must also be reviewed if we are serious about creating a professional military.

We must decide once and for all what we want to do with sequestered properties, and when the Presidential Commission on Good Government should be abolished.

We need political reforms, and we are badly in need of electoral reforms. If Charter change can lead to the abolition of the Commission on Elections and its replacement with a credible body, Cha-cha proponents can gain more public sympathy.

There are many sound reasons to amend the Constitution. Deciding the political fate of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo should be the least of them.