Five electoral reforms need Charter change

By whatever method – people’s initiative, constituent assembly or elected convention – the Constitution needs urgent review. The Advocacy Commission has forwarded three reasons: liberalize the economy to create jobs, shift to parliamentary form to end partisan gridlock, and set up a federal structure for greater autonomy. The venerable retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide adds five more.

As presidential adviser on electoral reform, Davide proposed: (1) the separation of national and local elections, (2) four-year terms for legislators and local officials, (3) return of the two-party system, (4) punishments for political butterflies, and (5) raffling of cases to the Comelec en banc.

All five require Constitutional amendments to put in place. Davide’s other recommendations – raise public awareness of their election duties, ban on appointing elected officials to other positions, and define political dynasties – can be done by the executive or legislative branches.

There are many good reasons to desynchronize national and local elections. Foremost is to give national candidates greater chance to explain their platforms.

Being the most farcical, senatorial campaigns are the best example. A ticket’s 12 senatorial bets hardly have time to converse with voters. They would stump a province’s three to five biggest towns in one day in order to complete the 80-province campaign within the Charter’s 90-day limit. In a rally, the party’s gubernatorial and mayoral candidates usually would speak first, followed by their running mates, for 30 minutes each. The presidential and vice presidential standard bearers would speak last, also for half an hour. That leaves the 12 senatorial wannabes only five minutes each, in order not to bore the audience. What can one say in five minutes? Here’s what. The moment he hops on stage, he sings, dances or plays the guitar. Hopefully having grabbed the crowd’s attention, he then introduces himself, stressing how to spell his ballot nickname: "It’s very simple, remember me by my actress-wife, and write her name, R-O-S-E, got it?" By then, he has only half a minute left, so he exits the stage by again singing, dancing or playing the guitar. No wonder senatorial elections have become a contest of popularity and not platforms. No wonder voters invariably elect show biz celebrities.

Separating elections would change all that. But it would need Charter rewriting. For, the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) specifically requires synchronized balloting.

Lengthening the terms of congressmen and local officials to four years from the present three would make them do more than just prepare for reelection. Mayors have been heard to say they spend the first year in office repaying political debts, the second year doing what constituents really need, and the last year campaigning. Longer terms would at least give them two years instead of only one for the right work. Constitutional revisions would be needed in the Legislative Department (Art. VI) and Local Government (Art. X).

In advocating a return to the two-party mode and punishments for political turncoats, Davide must have considered the arguments for strong party platforms and discipline.

The two-party system allows voters to quickly differentiate programs instead of mere personalities. More so, if one party is liberal and the other conservative, or one is for big government and the other is for less services (and taxes). Voters would be encouraged to join the party whose platform coincides with their beliefs. Small grassroots organizations or labor groups would federate with established parties. Parties in turn would have more fund sources. Bloc voting would be manageable. But this would require changing of the section in the Commission on Elections (Art. IX-C) that requires "a free and open party system."

Ditto with the suggestion on treatment of political balimbing. Too often have parties spent for candidates’ campaigns, only for the latter to switch sides upon election. The problem is not so much that the parties, but the voters, were shortchanged. Voters would have elected them mainly for popularity but partly for platforms too. But if they switch sides, they would then be with the Administration instead of the Opposition, or the other way around. Most congressmen and local officials join the Administration party upon election, if only to facilitate the release of pork barrels or internal revenue allotments. Punishing turncoats would need changing of the section on open party system.

Davide’s proposal to raffle cases to the Comelec en banc would ease the election body’s caseload and block favoritism. Commissioners would be prevented from tackling cases in which kith or kin are complainants or respondents. But this would need rewriting of the item in the Commission on Elections (Art. IX-C), which mandates the en banc to rule on all cases brought before it.

One need not be a "parliamentarist" to join the great debate on the Charter. Even "presidentialists" are seeking improvements of the system. Two reforms stand out. The President and the running mate should be elected in tandem, so that in case of death or permanent incapacity, the Vice President can continue the campaign programs. Too, there should be run-off elections of the top two contenders for a majority vote, in case presidential candidates get only pluralities in the first balloting.

Opponents of debates insist that electoral reforms be laid down first, such as automated balloting and revamp of the Comelec, before any talk of Charter change. True, some of the reforms can be done by act of Congress or of contrition. But other reforms need Constitutional changing of the system altogether.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]