Today’s great debate

Unicameral or bicameral? Parliamentary or presidential? These are among the great issues of the moment. If one considers the divergence of opinions on these subjects, and the tenacity with which both sides cling to their positions, one might think that this country is hopelessly divided. One might fret that the predictable outcome will, as usual, be indecision and eventual paralysis. One would be dead wrong.

One way or the other, the people will have to decide. While permutations are possible – such as a parliament with a president, a unicameral presidential or bicameral parliamentary, or whatever other esoteric creation hyper-active policy wonks can conjure up – the fact is a system will have to be chosen by the people.

The people may opt for the existing presidential bicameral system, with "defects" corrected by remedial legislation. That, too, is a choice. Some believe that junking the present system entirely is unwise, reckless and premature. Whatever our choice, we will have to live with it unless and until we decide as a sovereign people to change the system once again. But there are those who counsel against constant change.

Obviously, any radical and fundamental change in our system of government must be effected with eyes wide open. There can be no argument with the statement of the seven dissenters from the majority report of the Consultative Commission that any proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution "should be logical and reasonable responses to specific concerns and/or systemic deficiencies."

We can also concur with the dissenters’ view that "any proposed changes must be firmly anchored on a logical and reasonable belief that these will accelerate the pace of economic development, improve the standard of living of the Filipino people, and promote the general good." The dissenters think the positions taken by the majority on the proposed shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government are "based on deeply flawed and faulty arguments."

So let’s start with the dissenters’ objections to a parliamentary form of government which they say were "cavalierly brushed aside" by their opponents. One virtue of the "Dissenting Report" is that it goes to the heart of the dispute. We can distill its main arguments, as follows:

A unicameral parliament concentrates too much power in the hands of politicians. We should be dispersing power, not concentrating it further in a fused legislative and executive body. The Prime Minister and ruling coalition are effectively given full discretion over the national budget. They can decide on projects and implement them at the same time. There are few checks and balances to control possible abuse.

The P.M.’s tenure is overly dependent on the support of other members of Parliament. This inherent instability enshrines "transactional decision-making," as well as catering to special interests, as the parliamentary way of governance. Thus, the ability to change leaders frequently is not an advantage but a very serious shortcoming.

It has not been proved that a parliamentary form of government leads to better economic performance. In fact, a parliamentary system makes it more difficult to adhere to economic policies because of frequent conflict with special interests which are typically represented in government. The problem is compounded by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in the parliamentary form.

The argument that graft and corruption are substantially reduced in the parliamentary form, because elections are local rather than national, is simplistic. Graft and corruption happen, not only because of huge expenditures which need to be recovered by whatever means, but also other factors such as poverty, greed and cultural aberrations. These problems can be addressed by electoral reform laws, not by a change in the form of government.

A person salivating for the post of Prime Minister will likely spend as much if not more than a presidential candidate running nationally in order to secure the support of members of parliament. To keep that support while in office, the P.M. will have to keep his colleagues happy with pork barrel and other favors.

It is untrue that the legislative "gridlock" built into our present presidential system is the reason for failure to keep economic pace with our high-performing neighbors. Even when there was no such gridlock, as in the Marcos and Aquino presidencies, the country also fell behind. The reasons for this failure are more profound than simply gridlock.

We have extensive experience with the presidential system. We know what we need to do to resolve its problems and deficiencies. Why waste this experience and start the learning curve all over again when no clear benefits to a new parliamentary system have been shown?

No doubt these are strong arguments. But do they clinch the case against a parliamentary form of government? Not so fast, Speedy Gonzales. I can hear the pro-chacha diehards screaming, "What about our arguments?" They’re right, of course, but for lack of space, and to do justice to the majority view, I will have to devote the next column to the case for a unicameral parliamentary system.

Let me just tease you with a put-down uttered by Consultative Commission chair, Dr. Jose V. Abueva, in response to what he deemed to be the hectoring of the dissidents. He noted, with fearsome logic, that the opponents of charter change tend to argue from the point of view of theory and concept, while the issue really has to do with actual experience.

In a sense, I’m somewhat surprised that the Commission in its committee and plenary sessions didn’t more adequately address the legitimate concerns of the dissenters. That, at any rate, is the latter’s perception. But at some point, all the debate must stop and a decision must be made.

However, while the debate has stopped at the Consultative Commission which has submitted its recommendations to the President, the debate will continue at the House and the Senate. The people are already expressing opinions, but the arguments among citizens will peak at plebiscite time. Think it’s all over? You gotta be kidding.