A lame-duck President by 2007?

You gotta hand it to Speaker Joe de Venecia. After all this time, he’s still the old nimble and quick politico who’s as good a dancer or tightrope-walker as they come. Just ask Jun Pichay who’s still wondering what the hell happened to his non-campaign to unseat the Speaker.

But knowing Jun, I’m not counting him out just yet. Neither, I am sure, is the Speaker whose non-confrontational approach to challengers has always been to feed them carrots and other goodies, not humiliate them or teach them hard lessons in realpolitik.

Still, Joe will need all his terpsichorean skills to two-step himself out of a dilemma of his own creation. It all has to do with one simple question: Assuming that elections for a new parliament are held in 2007, what exactly will the role of the President be from 2007 to 2010?

Last September 26th, when he was the guest speaker of the Manila Overseas Press Club, the Speaker detoured from the topic of his address, his debt-equity swap proposal, to embark on a trademark oration about charter change. After impressing his audience with the imminence of fundamental changes in our form of government, he confidently declared that elections for the new parliament would be held in 2007.

That led naturally to the question of the status of the incumbent President, especially since Joe also noted that the new parliament would elect a Prime Minister. Joe expressed confidence that the President would either step down – as she hinted during the 2004 national elections – or would accept some form of "diminution" of her power. The Prime Minister would be the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO. GMA would be "more than a ceremonial President" until her current term expired in 2010, while the PM as CEO would basically run things.

Although the specifics hadn’t been ironed out, the PM and the transitional President would both have some voice in policy-making. It was clear, however, that GMA would be a transitional President with important but somewhat diminished powers. Remember the "Five Options" Joe said the President had?

It subsequently turned out that the person most surprised by Joe’s exposition was GMA herself. Her public position was clear, if unsurprisingly controversial: She had no intention of stepping down before 2010. She had every intention of finishing out the term of office to which she was elected. There were no five options, there was only one.

Whether it was coincidental or not that Joe’s problems with renegade members of his House coalition, including open challenges to his position as Speaker, followed soon after his MOPC stint is anybody’s guess. It is fair to say, however, that his life post-"Five Options" has been "interesting," in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse.

But, to reiterate, Joe is as nimble and quick as Jack in the nursery rhyme. As rapidly as a chameleon changes colors, Speaker Joe has been reborn as the spokesman for the proposition that GMA will remain with "undiminished powers" until 2010. Indeed, the Speaker is quoted as proclaiming: "We will propose that we follow the French model, where there is a strong president who is both head of government and head of state."

Moreover, he adds, the President will be "assisted" by a Prime Minister who would be her, note this well, Chief Operating Officer. In corporate practice, the COO is usually the number 2 man, or woman, while the CEO is top banana.

In effect, the PM, who only assists the boss, will temporarily be like a Vice President. It may or may not be apropos that several analysts, including political scientists and previous occupants of that position in many countries, have likened that position to a pitcherful of spit, whose actual utility or benefit for mankind is suspect.

While this proposed structure may be tailor-made for GMA, one has to wonder whether it will work. For one thing, it doesn’t look like the Constitution, as eventually amended, will adopt the French model of a strong President alongside a Parliament. Thus, GMA will only be a transitional President, which is another way of saying she will be a lame duck for the balance of her term.

Further, unless a distinctively servile and compliant Prime Minister is "elected" to serve as her COO cum assistant, I’m not entirely sure that relationship will be a cozy or workable one. There hasn’t been much talk about terms of office, but I believe chacha proponents envisage a longer term of office for members of Parliament, something like five years, but certainly not as brief as three years. If the transitional President is to phase out after three years from 2007, but the PM will likely stay on, the question is whether the latter will agree to a subordinate role as mere "assistant."

I don’t think so. The PM can argue that he has the confidence of the entire parliament, being its elected leader, while she does not. Moreover, while it is unlikely that the transitory provisions will provide that GMA can be subjected to a special election during the transition period for lack of confidence, the elected members of Parliament wouldn’t be blamed for claiming a bigger stake in the durability of the new institution than one whose position is intended to self-destruct.

Were it not for the political complications that Joe, in all good faith I’m sure, stumbled upon, the best idea seems to be former President Fidel V. Ramos’ suggestion for an early shift to a full-fledged parliamentary system, with no accommodations for a sitting President. The only give I can see in this proposal is to move full implementation to 2007. While next year is not impossible, our country is not known for moving with all deliberate speed. Moreover, a shift to a parliamentary system will be vigorously debated in the coming plebiscite. If that process is full and fair, its outcome is far from certain.

Those "political complications," of course, include the monkey wrenches the Senate could still throw along the way. After all, its alleged uselessness largely drives the proposed shift to a unicameral parliament. Further, Speaker Joe has thrown down the gauntlet. He says that charter change will happen, whether or not the Senate is on board.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the last say on the matter. The Supreme Court does. This muddled situation cries out for clarity. Maybe it isn’t time yet for Joe to take off those dancing shoes. In fact, he may need them now, more than ever.