Political showdown

The real political showdown is not between the President and the Senate or between the Lower House and the Senate as it is made to appear. It is between local government and their constituencies on one side against the Establishment on the other, as it developed from a long history of a presidential system, plus stray colonial elements which have persisted. It is elite vs. yagit.

That is why the Senate is now scrambling for any method so long as it will stop the People’s Initiative. Once voted upon by a majority in a plebiscite, the petition will render both Houses of Congress irrelevant. We will have in its stead a unicameral interim parliament which will then proceed to other Charter changes envisioned but not possible under the mode of a people’s initiative: regional self-autonomy leading to a federal system and economic liberalization.

Stakeholders in the status quo would rather have any other kind or mode of constitutional change so long as the power remains in the hands of the Establishment. They fear the empowerment, true empowerment of the people that a successful people’s initiative can and will bring about. Criticisms against some local authorities may be valid in part but a people’s initiative on the whole symbolizes the principle of the basic political relationship that exists between governors and mayors and their constituencies that the elected officials of the higher orders do not have.

* * *

Call it ‘constituent assembly’ or ‘legislated constitutional reforms’ it just means the power to propose changes to the Constitution rests on Congress and Congress alone. Not surprisingly it comes from a senator who thinks of himself as presidential timber. Naturally he will not want any shift to parliamentary government that would foreclose his ambition.

His suggestion is anything but original. That was proposed by Congressman Hermilando Mandanas of Batangas in March 2005 but he was completely ignored except probably by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation which organized a lunch forum for Charter change advocates to hear him out. That was also the last I ever heard of it. I asked both congressmen and senators to whom Mandanas sent his proposal and what they thought of it then. They merely shrugged their shoulders — not doable. So why is a senator suddenly proposing what they once did not even pay the slightest attention to. The reason is obvious: they are afraid of the People’s Initiative as it gains in leaps and bounds.

Although Mandanas was the original proponent of legislated Charter changes he told this column that the best way to effect Charter change at this point is through People’s Initiative. He is himself a champion of local autonomy. He says there will be a lot of noise on this so-called legislated Charter change but no action will be taken — the senators do not want Charter change. He is for Charter change and he is for the shift to parliamentary government so his advice to Charter change advocates is to just support the People’s Initiative and get it done with. That will be the quickest way. He concurs with Sen. Miriam Defensor we should have an interim parliament by July. Congressman Constantino Jaraula adds if legislated Charter change is used all is lost. "We will not finish it under this Congress, not even in the next Congress (to be elected next year)." Indeed, it may never happen and that is exactly what this senator wants. It is nothing but a ploy to lull the public."

* * *

The senators miscalculated People’s Initiative given the power and reach of a partnership between local authority and their constituencies. Say what you want about lack of information, the fact is the people do understand in their own way just as they do every time they cast their votes on election day. And we’re not condemning elections. There are levels and levels of understanding among millions of voters in a democracy and we must welcome this variety unless we want a totalitarian approach and require everyone to understand it uniformly and have the same reason for signing for a People’s Initiative.

But the added fillip to putting their names down for People’s Initiative is not just because it is one of the methods of amendment. It also symbolizes the people’s sovereignty and that surely cannot be bad. Moreover it is a mere proposal subject to a plebiscite. Are the critics saying that the people have no right whatsoever to propose amendments? Even if it were for a single amendment, it does not matter. It will energize the political relationship between local authority and their constituents in ways that we cannot predict. But it is an auspicious beginning. It can grow from strength to strength.

Sigaw ng Bayan spokesperson Raul Lambino describes legislated constitutional amendments more quaintly. He calls it ‘constitutional estafa.’ The rules of ordinary legislation cannot be applied to constitution-making — those are separate functions of Congress, lawyer Lambino said.

Curiously while Sen. Drilon chides President GMA to leave the issue of Charter change to Congress, at the same time he endorses ‘legislated Charter change’. This means, following the rules of legislation that the President can veto or certify constitutional amendments. This is inconsistent with constitution making. So what does Drilon really want? I suspect he just wants to have his cake and eat it, too. Consistency is hardly Sen. Franklin Drilon’s strong point except perhaps when it comes to Charter change, wishfully thinking he can still be president.

We must respect the intention of the framers of the Constitution when it put the functions of Congress in two separate provisions Article VI for legislation and Article XVII for amendments and revisions. The scuttlebutt among insiders is that there may be Senate moles in the Palace and they are pushing for ‘legislated Charter change’ as a diversionary tactic. What they really want is to discourage President GMA from continuing to support Charter change and tire of it because of the Senate’s intransigence. Sige na nga convention na lang. That will be its death knell. They want to return the public debate to square one, back to mode of amendment instead of focusing on the substantial issues of Charter change. Critics will regale the public with their high-sounding preference for ‘constitutional convention’. There will be no shortage of ‘moralists’ and ‘do-gooders’ who will buy the fake goods hoping the People’s Initiative will lose momentum. They will attempt to wrest the moral high ground. But those who know better are more aware – the option of constitutional convention means ‘no change’. They know the Senate is going to use it to buy time. On the other hand if People’s Initiative succeeds the Senate will be abolished. We shift to an interim unicameral parliamentary. Incidentally, we save billions immediately and that should go to the people’s education.

* * *

My e-mail is: [email protected]