No change

 As the past administration interfered in the choice of CJ nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) the last time around, so has the present administration this time around. Now however, it is more open and blatant. The representative of the Lower House in the JBC, who is a known Malacanang hatchet-man in the removal of the last CJ, is trying to change or suspend the rules on disqualification to accommodate PNoy’s apparent choice for the position. His moves all the more clearly and definitely confirm that the JBC is not insulated from politics; that its choices are subject to Malacanang pressure. Obviously the JBC has not served its reason for being.

Nothing much has changed indeed. The promised reforms in the government are becoming more and more impossible to achieve under the style of governance now in vogue. Everything looks good and rosy only in speeches but not in actuality. There is still too much politics in running the affairs of government as shown by the recent visits to flood stricken areas which have all the earmarks of early “campaigning’ also done in the past. Even the avowed objective of checking graft and corruption with a rallying cry of“kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”, seems to be just another political gimmick for image building rather than for actually cleaning up and improving public service.

The most concrete step to show that this administration really means to curb corruption is to abolish, or at least gradually reduce, the pork barrel now more palatably called Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Everybody knows that the pork is one of the biggest sources of corruption in this country. Candidates spend way beyond the limits of election campaign expenses just to win positions in the Senate or House of Representatives because they know that once elected, they can recover their expenses and earn much more through their “pork barrels”. Indeed this pork barrel is the main cause of rampant patronage politics that has made our elections so dirty. If the pork barrel is abolished, candidates whose main intention is to get rich in office than to render public service will no longer be interested to run. This administration should have started reducing it upon taking over until it is totally eliminated. After all, legislation is more about enacting good laws than undertaking development projects.

Unfortunately, exactly the opposite happened. In 2011, its first year in office, the budget for pork was increased to P22.3 billion from P6.9 billion in 2010 or a whopping 223% increase! Then this year 2012, the budget for pork is P24.89 billion or another increase of more than 10%. And next year 2013, an election year, the budget will be P30 billion! Indeed, as rightfully observed by Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism which conducted this research, this means “more taxpayers’ money wasted on pet projects of politicians”; and, needless to say, more graft and corruption.

Apparently, reforms cannot be realized under the present set-up. Looking at where we are heading now, the need to change our charter, more specifically our form of government is becoming more imperative. This is true especially in the light of the present situation where Malacanang holds sway over Congress which is almost like having a parliamentary system of government. Under said system, the legislative and executive departments are merged with the Chief Executive becoming the Prime Minister who can be removed anytime by a vote of no confidence.

To be sure, the parliamentary system is what we need to ease the problem of corruption in public office and in the political realm of elections, according to this in depth studies made by a reader Mr. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. Citing related literatures, Mr. Alicias, Jr. theorized that “parliamentary democracy would have a positive impact on easing the problem of corruption because of the relatively greater ease of removing its leader than that which obtains in a presidential democracy, as evidenced by the great difficulty (small probability) of removing an errant president or Supreme Court justice or any other impeachable officer via the present impeachment mechanism. Explaining further, he said: “There is the almost self evident proposition that the ease of a public officer’s removal from office is directly proportional to the propensity of him engaging in acts of corruption. Equivalently, the more difficult for him to be held accountable for his acts in office would mean the greater likelihood for him to act improperly, illegally and corruptly…Apparently what operates in the mind of an ill motivated impeachable officer, knowing that it is improbable for him to be removed, given the design of the existing impeachment mechanism is …’to make hay while the sun shines’ that is while he is in office”. And this mentality seeps down the line. The finding therefore is that “parliamentary systems are associated with lower incidence of corruption” while “presidential systems raise the probability of high level of corruption”.

In the political realm of elections Mr. Alicias, Jr. cited another writer Abdukadirov who conducted studies in Central Asia and concluded that:

“Under the presidential system in Central Asia, the elite factions agree upon a presidential candidate before the elections and then ensure their candidate’s victory by manipulating the elections. As the cost of this process is very high, very elite faction is forced to collude with other factions. Under a parliamentary system, bargaining among the elites in the selection of the head of State would occur after the elections as the elites would first have to secure parliamentary seats to be able to vote for the head of State. Such process would reduce the stakes in each particular election, making it harder for the elites to manipulate elections yet safer to allow some opposition. Furthermore the balance of power among the elites in the parliament would be decided by the people, giving them a voice in the process”.

Thus Abdukadirov concluded that the “cost of manipulation is higher under a parliamentary system. Under the presidential system, the dominant elite factions have to manipulate the outcome of only one election, that of the president. In a parliamentary system, there are dozens and even hundreds of elections of members of parliament that need to be manipulated by the dominant central elites”. In short manipulation of election will less likely occur in a parliamentary system.

Sounds logical indeed. But will it be allowed by our dominant political elite?

Our email address: [email protected]