Let the people decide

These are times indeed when we more acutely feel the need of a Statesman as President since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. Apparently PNoy is playing too much politics instead being statesmanlike during his first three years in office. And it becomes more noticeable in his case considering that he himself has been saying that he can no longer run for re-election after the end of his six-year term.

One of his un-statesmanlike moves in this regard is apparently his current attempt to influence members of Congress as representatives of the people in their plan to change our constitution. He is actually playing politics here again – the kind of politics eloquently described by noted French poet-philosopher Paul Valery (1871-1945), as the “art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them”.  If he is really a “statesman” according to the repeated claims of his spokespersons in Malacañang, he should keep his hands off and refrain from blocking Congress in its move to Cha-Cha. After all the Constitution itself provides that the decision to Cha-Cha is lodged in the people directly or indirectly through Congress.

Undeniably, the Constitution is not a perfect document, even if it has been thoroughly deliberated upon, meticulously studied and closely reviewed. Its framers may have been the best and the brightest in the country, prudent enough to ensure that it is clear, concise and covers all aspects of social, political and economic life in the country. Nevertheless, such document cannot be absolutely perfect or unchangeable and subject to improvement in the course of time. After all “the biggest room in this world is (still) the room for improvement”. And this is precisely the reason for the renewed call to change and improve our charter.

Indeed the events and circumstances occurring since the present Constitution was framed more than 26 years ago undeniably show that many of its provisions have to be changed. Definitely, this is a charter that is not adequately working for the benefit of the people as proven by what has happened and are still happening to our country up to now.

We still have the rotten politicians running our government in all levels; the favoritism and selectiveness in putting to task non-performing government officials or in investigating those suspected of being involved in anomalies and shady deals which is obviously the reason for the unchecked graft and corruption in public service even under PNoy who has been repeatedly praised in media as an “honest” president; and of course the unsolved problem of poverty despite the favorable economic indicators.

To be sure, the most pressing changes are not really in the economic provisions of the charter as PNoy himself said. He may have a point in claiming that “economic development can happen without necessarily amending the constitution” citing once more the healthy 7.8 percent growth in the gross domestic product in the first quarter.

Actually however, charter change is more urgent in achieving genuine government reforms that have been the promise of all politicians in their attempt to gain power. In fact PNoy supposedly won in the last 2010 PCOS powered election mainly because of his promise to institute such reforms. His firm stance against charter change now after three years in office only goes to show his lack of sincerity in his promise to reform our government.

Genuine reforms in government are indeed possible only by amending some constitutional provisions. We have seen before and up to now that despite the anti dynasty provision in the constitution, political dynasties that undoubtedly breed corruption, incompetence and political patronage both in the local and national levels, continue to proliferate due to the absence of an implementing law. Hence the constitution should be amended so that the prohibition can be enforced even without such law.

Also very patent in our midst right now is the enormous amount spent for the operation of Congress compared to the quality of outputs of their members who even enjoy scandalously huge “pork barrels” that have nothing to do with their legislative functions. The expenses are even doubled because of duplication of functions where bills already passed after thorough study and investigation by one chamber undergo the same process in the other chamber. Hence the Constitution should be amended by converting Congress into a unicameral body. With this set up the upper and lower house will be merged, with lesser number of members elected by regions into which the country will be divided depending on the size of their population. This amendment will also get rid of the useless party list system of representation that has only benefitted the leftist organizations and the moneyed class and even political dynasties.

Of course, having a unicameral body does not mean it will no longer be controlled by, and independent of the President. So the better option here is the adoption of the Parliamentary system where a Premier will be elected by the members of the Parliament who will run the affairs of the State together with his cabinet who are also members thereof. Under this set up, the President will just become a nominal head of State with substantially less powers so that in case of failure of government, it is the premier and the members of the Parliament who are directly responsible to the people. This is usually the set up eventually resulting in a unicameral Congress.

For a more independent Judiciary on the other hand, the power to appoint Judges and Justices of all the courts should be removed from the President and given to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Members of the JBC should be elected by members of the Bench and the Bar duly selected pursuant to a process to be formulated by the Charter itself.

So why not let the people decide on whether to Cha-Cha?

E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com