Consumers Domain
More thoughts on Charter Change
"Make haste slowly, and do not be slothful when opportunity beckons.
Thus you will avoid grave errors."
- by Kahlil Gibran
On an earlier article under this column (January 30 issue), I addressed the issue of charter change. In that article, I posed this question: Under the present administration, is a new constitution that embodies the best interest of the nation possible? My answer was a definite "NO". I reiterate this point today.
However I believe there are merits to some arguments of the proponents of the change to a federal-parliamentary form of government. Chief of these is that it will bring government closer to the localities, to the people. In a federal set-up the different regional groupings will be formed into autonomous states that govern themselves independently. Each state will have their own state laws, their own independent governing structures, etc.
This will be a breakaway from the current centralized system where power is to a certain extent concentrated in "Imperial Manila". Indeed, while decentralization and devolution were undertaken with the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, the structures of government instrumentalities, branches and services still flow up to the head offices located in the capital. The main mechanism for the shaping of policies and crafting of laws are still left to a single national legislature we call the Congress.
Thus on one hand, they say that a federal system will be more responsive to the different specific needs and peculiarities of the different regions. And on the other hand, a parliamentary system will provide for a more stable political set up as all it takes to change the head of the government (the Prime Minister) is a vote-of-no-confidence. This, they further say, will lessen the need for people power or any social upheaval to institute a change in the administration as opposed to the current presidential system.
With the arguments above, the Consultative Commission on Charter Change headed by Jose Abueva drafted its recommendation for a new constitution. Lets not forget that this commission was formed last year by our Hello-Garci-President as a concession to Ramos who came to her rescue at the height of the movement to oust her out of office.
Reviewing the draft that was submitted by the commission to Congress, here are some issues and reservations that I have with the efforts to change our charter.
First, one major characteristic of our political system and culture is the deep dominance of nepotism. In many regions, political clans still exercise unopposed power. A federal set up will strengthennepotism in the state-level as political clansindifferent regions will simply take-over with the power which was devolved. Most likely, states will be governed by the same trapos, their relatives and/or friends in the regional level.
Second, one major requisite for a parliamentary system to be effective is a strong principle-based, platform-based party system. Surely in our current political set up this does not exist. Politicians join a political party that can provide resources and machinery for its election to a post - not base on principles or programs.
Third, the system of check and balance is very important in a political situation like ours where patronage politics run high in the system. Since the legislative and executive branches will be merged; and transformed into a unicameral legislative/executive body, there will be no more checks and balance. Where nepotism and patronage politics is dominant, an abusive corruptPrime Minister, supported by his/her equally corrupt, unprincipled political party, with the support of other trapos who can bought into supporting him/her, can practically hostage the government.
Thusthe vote-of-no-confidence is rendered inutile as they ensure their continued stay in power, despite the clamor of the people. This was in fact exactly what happened when the trapos in the Lower House shot down the impeachment proceedings versus Gloria "Hello-Garci" Arroyo. How much more in a unicameral parlimentary system?
Lastly, the proposed revision in the constitution includes the dilution and deletion of the nationalist economic and patrimony provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Our economy and natural resources including agricultural land are being opened to foreign ownership and control.
It means that one main motive of charter change is to comply with globalization policies as pushed by the WTO (World Trade Organization). This is to further liberalize and deregulate the Philippine economy so to accommodate the interests of foreign corporations. This will result to the intensification of the damages that were already caused by these policies - closure of local based industries, increase unemployment and underemployment, dislocation of small and marginalized entrepreneurs, services will be converted to profit-driven businesses, damage to the livelihood of community-based small scale undertaking, further destruction of the environment and so forth.
Now, I say that our present constitution may not be perfect and has numerous flaws, and there are strong merits to the proposal to change into a federal-parliamentary form, butamending it during thistimeis not only inappropriate but also disastrous.
(Send your comments and reactions to: for text messages to 0919-348-6337; for e-mails to ianseruelo@yahoo.com; and for blogs to http://consumersdomain.blogspot.com.)