The cancellation of the 2007 elections is touted as a strategic way of introducing orderly Constitutional change. In addition, it will supposedly allow the country to save billions of pesos in election costs and focus on the economy which badly needs a respite from continuing political strife.
Both reasons are bogus, and it has nothing to do with which position is "morally superior." Those who claim that proceeding with the 2007 elections is the more morally sound position are engaging in Pharisaical self-congratulation. Elections are morally neutral. It depends on what your real agenda is.
Canceling elections won’t guarantee a more orderly introduction of a unicameral parliamentary system, in the same way that holding the elections won’t ensure it either.
Getting our people to accept a unicameral system will require the members of the new Parliament to show results quicker and with more concern for the least of our society than the bicameral system has exhibited. That won’t be a function of elections.
But what canceling the 2007 elections does is cloud up the atmosphere and muddy the waters. It gives rise to speculation that the proponents of charter change, particularly the trapos in the Constitutional Consultative Commission, all of whom were appointed by the President, were motivated not by the highest public interest, but the narrow and selfish agendas of fellow trapos and their families bent on clinging to power.
A disgruntled Constitutional Commissioner tells me that the Commission recommended that the President be authorized to appoint 30 additional members of Parliament during the transition period. The original proposal was reportedly for 55 appointive MPs. The Commission happens to have exactly 55 members. If true, this was a poorly-camouflaged ploy to get all the Commissioners to sit in the new Parliament.
Far from being disqualified from benefiting from their patriotic enterprise, these purported statesmen apparently made sure they’d be able to spruce up their resumes by stating that they served in the very first Parliament organized under the new and improved Constitution. Conscience-stricken, but only ever so slightly, the Commission eventually decided to reduce the number to 30.
Still, many vowed they would not accept any such appointment, even if proffered. Hooray for them! But I’m certain that the appointing power will have no difficulty finding 30 self-proclaimed patriots salivating to accept the enormous challenge of serving as unelected MPs and potential members of the Cabinet.
Actually, there may be legal basis for allowing the President, the Vice-President and the 12 senators who were elected in 2004 to serve out their full six-year terms. Even the most rabid oppositionist would have to admit that charges regarding the allegedly "stolen" mandate of GMA have not progressed to the point where she can be legally unseated anytime soon. The Vice-President is fighting an electoral contest which won’t be decided for some time.
However, congressmen and local officials have no such claim to continuing tenure. The bargain with the electorate was for a three-year term, which expires in 2007. Citing the "support" of local officials for canceling the elections is ludicrous. Of course they would be happy to stay for three more years without having to go through the expense and risk of re-election! The inefficient and the corrupt among them would have three more years at the feeding trough. Keeping these non-performing and thieving officials would impose cruel and unusual punishment upon their long-suffering constituents.
The senators whose terms expire in 2007, and all congressmen, are exulting over this manna from heaven. The senators, who are elected nationally, are saving hundreds of millions of pesos by getting three-year extensions, even as they mourn the death of the "Upper House." Congressmen would also save heaps of money, and have more than three more years to keep pesky newcomers and come-backing old foes at bay.
More important, the "graduates" don’t have to find other employment. Senators and congressmen who would no longer be qualified to stand for re-election due to term limits, 12 years for senators and 9 for representatives, would be able to enjoy three more years warming their seats, or missing quorum calls, at the expense of the people.
This is the atrocity that canceling the 2007 elections perpetrates upon the people. There is basis to the charge that this may constitute bribery of incumbent local officials to ensure their support in the event an initiative and referendum under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution becomes necessary because of the intransigence of Senators.
The pesos that would be saved, and the "respite" that the economy would have from scrapping the electoral exercise, are not sufficiently compelling to risk the political storm that is certain to hit this country once the debates begin in earnest.
A transition period of three years – with an unelected Parliament, 24 former senators converted into ordinary members of Parliament, 30 appointive "distinguished citizens" serving as additional MPs, a powerless Prime Minister, a President with undiminished powers, a Vice-President who remains second in the line of succession, and a provision prohibiting dissolution of government or a no-confidence vote during the transition – will also mean three years of ceaseless and divisive debate over the legality and propriety of the process. It’s a clear prescription for unremitting instability.
The elections in 2007 will not doom the economy or damage it irreparably. If the rosy reports of government about the economy are accurate, the country won’t be bankrupted by those elections.
But canceling the elections, far from giving the country respite from political and economic turmoil, will plunge us all into a divisive, protracted and high-decibel conflict which will keep us in the doldrums for a considerably longer time, starting right now!