Rose-tinted glasses

I keep trying to get to the case for a unicameral, parliamentary form of government, but I am once again sidetracked by a distraction which I must nevertheless attend to, in order to set the record straight.

I would like to thank those six members of the defunct Consultative Commission who wrote to this newspaper expressing their displeasure at our columns of December 22 and 24. Their letter gives me an opportunity to pursue, with greater vigor, my inquiry into the process utilized to fashion, and approve, proposals for charter change.

Our inquiry must include that recommendation to cancel the 2007 elections. This "No-El" recommendation prompted 21 Commissioners, a group which included four of our letter-writers but none of the seven dissenting Commissioners, to send a "Collective Position Paper" to Chairman Jose V. Abueva asking that the pertinent provisions in the Transitory Provisions regarding No-El be "rejected and stricken out."

Otherwise, the Group of 21 argued, "the members of the Commission will be judged by history as the group of men and women who had no (sic) vision nor the capacity to voice out the true concern of the people." "It was as if," the Group added, "we never consulted our people and just came up with these provisions." Eloquently put!

Let me be perfectly clear about this: I stand on all the statements made in the subject columns. I make absolutely no apologies for them. If these complaining Honorable Commissioners had but read the columns carefully, rather than try to find imagined holes where there were none, they would have seen that I was largely stating the positions of the dissenters, as expressed in their own "Report" to the President.

When these positions were in the nature of claims or allegations, they were explicitly characterized as such. Any supposed "insinuations" or viewing of a cup (not a glass?) as half-empty or half-full are the interpretations of the complaining Commissioners, not mine. They are free to make those interpretations, as I am likewise free to dismiss them as being downright erroneous and somewhat paranoid.

Some of my information did come from dissenters. Who else would give a point of view contrary to those of the majority Commissioners, whose rose-tinted glasses enabled them to see only the good, the beautiful and the patriotic in everything they did, including No-El. But the mere fact that contrary views are expressed does not make them wrong or irresponsible or unfair. The majority does not have a monopoly on truth, responsibility or fairness, much less pure motives or indisputable diligence.

I hate to disappoint the complaining Commissioners, but the dissenters were not my only sources. There were others whom I am not obligated under the law to reveal, as they have requested confidentiality for their own reasons. But where these sources made claims or allegations, these were specifically qualified as such. Look at the articles again, Messrs. and Mesdames Honorable Commissioners. It’s all there.

It seems to me that, whether the Honorable Commissioners acknowledge it or not, their real quarrel is with their dissenting colleagues, not with me. It is the dissenters that feel aggrieved because of the allegedly – note well, I said "allegedly"– defective process utilized in the crafting and approval of the Commission’s final recommendations for charter change.

What matters is the truth, not as it appears to either the majority or the minority, but as it really is, without color or embellishment. In order to get to the truth, all we need to do is consult the record of all proceedings of the Commission, as well as the minutes of the public consultations. Such a full record is now apparently available. I intend to go through it, once I have obtained the minutes and transcripts.

We get nowhere by name-calling or by taking cheap shots at fellow Commissioners, or columnists who call attention to possible – note that again, I said "possible" – defects in the process. Those defects may – note that: "may" (Jeez, this is getting tiresome!) – have been highlighted by the No-El proposal, which four of the complaining Honorable Commissioners themselves assailed (supra).

The dissenters don’t need me to explain their attendance record or work habits. I understand they are prepared to answer all questions on those subjects and, yes, that includes Tuxedo Man.

So, is "process" important, or is it only the refuge of losers who can’t take defeat, as Chair Abueva has said, also on Viewpoint? Is it only the "numbers" that’s relevant, and all that matters is the result of the vote?

In my view, the right process, perceived as such, is essential. The Consultative Commission was not a legislative body. It didn’t have the same mandate as the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The former’s "decisions" don’t have any binding effect on anyone. They can be jettisoned into the nearest trash heap, if that is the wish of the House or the Senate which will consider them.

The biggest contribution of the Consultative Commission should have been, not its "recommendations," but the rationale for the proposed changes. This is not a situation where "realpolitik" outweighs all other factors. It’s not an opportunity for politicians to secure bright futures or ensure the longevity of their clans in local politics. It is a time for serious thought and mature consideration of the alternative paths which our nation should take in its journey towards political maturity and economic stability.

Without a correct process to achieve this, it’s all a silly game of building sand castles which another generation of Filipinos may see fit to destroy. What good does that do our country?

And finally, a reminder and a commitment: In my columns of July 30th and August 2nd this year, I declared my support for early and comprehensive charter change, and for a unicameral parliamentary form of government. I also said then I was unprepared to subscribe to federalism, but would keep an open mind. I remain unconvinced about the case for federalism. These remain my convictions.

But I will defend to the death the right of those who disagree with these views to be heard and to have their day in the marketplace of ideas. In something as critical as charter change, we should, to paraphrase Chairman Mao, let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend. Our collective decision must be informed and rational. But most of all, it must be our own.