Charter change sans the ‘bribe’

Scorn met the proposal of the Consultative Commission on Charter Amendments to ditch the 2007 polls and extend all elective terms to 2010. Senators called it Marcosian, reminiscent of how a dictator, after imposing martial law and abolishing Congress in 1972, enticed legislators back with automatic seats in his rubberstamp Batasan if they signed assent. Others branded no-election a blatant bribe for today’s Congress to pass the Con-Com’s other pitches – parliamentary-federal form, unbridled economy – and for local execs to campaign for it in plebiscite.

A handful of the 54 Con-Com members had expected the bashing. In the closing seconds of the last Con-Com plenary Thursday night, 22 of them rushed a plea, for inclusion in the final report, urging President Arroyo to disregard a transitory provision on no-election. It is an insult to elected officials, they cried, and people would see through it. No-election would mar three months of nationwide consultations, studies and drafting of the right words for a switch to parliamentary-federal and lifting of economic restrictions. Worse, it would dash the country’s hope for genuine change through a new fundamental law.

But plenary officers relegated the plea to mere record attachments. They viewed it as an attempt to reopen debate on the issue, first voted 18-16 against no-election Tuesday night, then reversed 22-19 for no-election on Wednesday morning. So when Ms Arroyo on Friday formally received the Con-Com report and endorsed it forthwith to Congress, accusations flew thick. Opposition men labeled the entire Con-Com, including the 22 dissenters, as an Arroyo rubberstamp. No-election, they howled, was an attempt of the President, whose 2004 election was tainted a year later by the "Hello Garci" tapes, to hang on to power. Overshadowed by the no-election proviso are the more salient items, not only on parliament-federal or freer economy, but also for stricter accountability of public officials and electoral reforms. Nowhere could be heard any defense from the Union of Local Assemblies of the Philippines, the banding of all governors, mayors, vices, provincial board members, and city and town councilors that had proposed no-election to begin with.

The no-election bloc had miscalculated. Its lead promoter had urged pragmatism, saying term extension was the best bet to get senators to okay a constituent assembly of the bicameral Congress for official Charter changes. Yet it only hardened all the more the position of senators against such mode of amending the Constitution. Even if they relent, their draft Charter would smack of conflict of interest. Legislators are barred from passing laws to benefit themselves, like salary raises or heading a new agency within one year of creation. More so are they prohibited from extending their terms by Constitutional caveat. The Supreme Court would likely strike down a draft that contains term extensions. The Constitution won’t even reach plebiscite. The supposed national healing that will come from no-election is further iffy, at best. The harsh reality is that two or three candidates, and their followers, are aching to unseat the incumbents.

The time-line the bloc failed to think through was that a Con-Com draft must first pass muster by a Senate that is resistant to the constituent assembly mode. Only after the Senate softens, say, from the strength of arguments for parliament-federal and freer economy, will a plebiscite for ratification be scheduled. And voters will ratify the amendments only if they deem these sound and surfeit with self-sacrifice by the political elite. Otherwise, they will opt to retain the present system, even if viewed as hopeless in surveys that show one of every Filipinos aching to emigrate.

At this point, the only way to save Charter change is to convince the Senate to look at the Con-Com proposals without the no-election proviso. It’s not so much for the three months’ hard work of the Con-Com than the sentiments gathered from public consultations.

In those consultations the advanced elements of society – leaders in government, business, civics and sectors – gathered to present their views. Some came and left unconvinced of any Charter change at all. Most stayed to debate the pros and cons of presidential versus parliamentary form, of centralized versus autonomous structure via federalism, and xenophobic limits to Filipinos of ownership of media and advertising outfits, public utilities and residential land. In straw votes, there was overwhelming favor for a unicameral parliament to break the perennial deadlocks in Congress, or between the executive and legislative branches, before and after martial law. The farther the consulted were from Manila, the louder was their cry for greater autonomy, through federalism or other means. Restrictions were deemed wise only in ownership of agricultural lands and in exploiting natural resources. Charter change was seen as a necessary step, alongside a change of individuals as well, to correct the political and economy systems.

Earlier this year a poll showed 64 percent of Filipinos nixing Charter change. A parallel survey revealed, though, that 80 percent of citizens knew little or nothing at all about the Constitution being proposed for revision. Public discussions ensued since. A new poll in August-September now has 43 percent of respondents strongly or somewhat favoring Charter change. Only 26 percent strongly or somewhat oppose. The sentiment for change can only grow, but not with self-serving items for politicos.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]