A prayer for courage and wisdom for change

In times of crisis, prayer and deep thought and concern for the general welfare must be pre-eminent, in the consideration of any decision that will impact on the history and life of the nation.

For years, the Philippines governed under the American regime eventually celebrated Independence Day on July 4th, the same day when the United States commemorates its independence. It was a bold action of Diosdado Macapagal that shifted our day of Independence to June 12, the day we declared our Independence at Kawit, Cavite. Once more, another moment of great import to our nation’s life has to be decided upon: Should we adhere to the American System of Presidency and Bicameral Congress or do we now venture into a more practical approach of unitary Parliamentarism which can avoid the gridlock of underdevelopment that has been restricting our leap of growth? Can we have a plebiscite to determine the tide for change?

Can the collective efforts of more than six million signatures as a people’s initiative be persuasive? When Ninoy’s widow was hesitant to take on the mantle to restore democracy, 1 million signatures convinced her to dare and run against the dictator. Now, six million signatures are appealing for a plebiscite to be held. This is the best way to ascertain the people’s voice.

The prayer laid at the door of the Supreme Court is for courage and wisdom to change. We pray for the grace of inspiration to the Supreme Court. As Shakespeare said, "There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. We must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."

We agree with the observation of Sec. Heherson Alvarez, national spokesperson for LAKAS-CMD who laments that "the Cha-Cha debate has been obfuscated. Sight of the true issue has been lost, and the protagonists have been quibbling over trivialities and irrelevancies.

Personalities and political posturing have dominated the discourse. The controversy has been reduced to who said what, and to why he said so. Ulterior motives have been imputed one against the other, and protestations of noble intentions have been roundly disbelieved.

Word play has been injected. Amendment or revision? Legal technicalities have loomed large as the clash has been translated into a Supreme Court case. Does the 1997 ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec prevent the holding of a plebiscite? Is there an adequate enabling law to support a people’s initiative? We have even lost focus and our sense of time and sequence. We are not yet to choose between a parliamentary and a presidential form of government. That is for the plebiscite. The only issue for now is whether we should hold a plebiscite or not on the proposed change to the Constitution.

Will the whole nation be heard? That is the only issue before the Supreme Court. The genuineness of the 6.3 million signatures is a matter of the COMELEC, not for the Supreme Court, to resolve. Even that is a preliminary issue only. The ultimate issue is yet for the majority of the electorate to decide, and that will be during the plebiscite. This majority will not be 6.3 million only. Come plebiscite time is when we can properly get excited and passionate about the relative merits of Parliamentarism. Opposition to the holding of a plebiscite is not really an opposition to parliamentarism. It is a brazen attempt to pre-empt the people’s choice on the matter."

We await, with bated breath, the Supreme Court’s decision. In a democracy, we should allow the voice of the people to be heard.