Fundamental constitutional change
WE are having a political food fight. While many are having fun or appalled by it, my question is, “Why are we having it?”
Something I first observed toward the end of the first Marcos era when I was in my 20s and, to my surprise, eventually there always is an opposition, even when there was only one ruling group. There are always more ambitions, aspirations and prized positions than can satisfy the many seeking that. So, if the opposition does not come from outside, it will come from inside. It is not like Fidel Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile came from outside the government when they turned against Marcos in 1986.
I fully expect all political coalitions in the Philippines to break up as there was no reason except expediency for them to get together. There does not seem to be any cause, program or ideology-driven alliances. Just betting on who will win as president and if you bet wrong, hoping you can still join after. I joke most of the opposition seem to be those not allowed to join the majority group.
Still, I did not expect this possible breakup to come one-fourth of the way into this administration’s term. The last time something like that happened — and it was even earlier in an administration — was with President Corazon “Cory” Aquino and Vice President Salvador Laurel. It was also the last time you saw members of the same government publicly criticizing each other.
Remember when President Cory Aquino had 22 out of 24 senators in her coalition yet had to lead a rally to the Senate in her failed attempt to get her allies to vote for extending the US bases treaty in 1991? We are far from something analogous, but I hope the President puts an end to this as it will not help if it continues.
What were the awful side effects of the indecision, lack of coherence and discipline of the first Aquino administration? Economic underperformance, abysmal government services and nine coup attempts. Please, let us not slide back to that. Again, we are not there, and very far from it, but we are at a crossroads. I hope we take the better route and stay there.
It is not like we aren’t facing substantial challenges on many longstanding fronts like food insecurity, no manufacturing, endo (end of contract), being at the bottom for educating our people, high population growth and challenges to our mostly foreign-owned and -dominated BPO industry. Yet, with that, the priority is not legislation and executive action to address all that, but constitutional change and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s supposed use of drugs.
I will ignore the insults and horse race aspects going on and try to analyze fundamentals about constitutional change and its necessity and benefits. The changes can be divided into two. Economic provisions and our political system — presidential or parliamentary, unicameral, or bicameral legislatures and term limits or some combination of these.
On economic changes, the main point is we have fallen behind our neighbors and peers. Yes, I sadly agree and am old enough to see Thailand, China, Indonesia and now Vietnam join South Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia in moving way ahead of us in sustained and inclusive economic growth. They became middle-income countries or are clearly on their way there. What is the proposed answer? Open our economy further and remove all limits of foreign ownership in all sectors, and so on, is what the constitutional change proponents advocate.
Why is the tiring and unimaginative prescription for our woeful economic performance over the last 60 years still being advocated 40 years after the Washington Consensus became popular and long after it was discarded especially by its authors? Intellectual laziness? Not being up-to-date?
I am concerned about removing all nationality limits on the commanding heights of our economy (utilities, transportation, energy and power). I view that as a straw man argument and the standard prescription of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the 1980s and 1990s that has long been abandoned and buried with finality everywhere else after the West did the opposite of what they have been telling the Third World to do since the 1960s when they had their own severe recession and crisis in 2008. They also acknowledged after the 1997 crisis that the social effects were too harsh and did not have sufficient safeguards. Thus, even Washington no longer believed in the Washington Consensus. (On land ownership, I do not consider that a major issue and do whatever you want is my view on that).
The problem is this dated and abandoned elsewhere else solution is not backed by any proof. To me, it is ideology not reality. In Asia, the fastest-growing countries over the last few decades are China and Vietnam.
Their restrictions on foreign investment in land ownership, or the commanding heights of the economy are more severe than ours. Solving our problem with our cellar-dwelling economic record must lie somewhere else then. I have discussed this in previous columns, so kindly look them up should you wish to have this discussed in more detail. It is like you had a heart attack, and you are prescribing failed medicine for cancer as the cure.
Let’s get to systemic and political changes. My view of term limits used to be what the mainstream opinion is. They are good, and we need to keep them, and it is only those selfperpetuating officials who want to remove term limits, and so on. Though I looked harder and wondered if except for limiting the president to one six-year term, has it worked for any other position? Or instead of a person running until he or she died or lost, we have now made it even more of a family business and ironically, entrenched dynasties even more.
Then let’s get to the system of government, do we want it to be presidential, parliamentary, unicameral or bicameral? These are serious issues, and it would be tragic if yet again we let the personal rivalries of the day become what drive our possible constitutional changes. We have a bicameral legislature which won over the expected unicameral parliamentary system in the 1987 Constitution because the first President Aquino reportedly changed her mind and given her falling-out with Vice President Laurel did not want him to be prime minister and rival her in running the government.
It seems to have been done in such haste that some provisions
on how to amend the Constitution were written as if we had a unicameral legislature, and some provisions like that on the legislature proposing amendments to the Constitution were sloppily left in place rather than adjusted.
I prefer the system we were supposed to have with the 1973 Constitution, which is like the French, where you have a president with real power, a prime minister who also has real power and one legislative body. The problem is we never tried it as President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. added many transitory provisions and Amendment 6, which made him a dictator as he had full executive and legislative powers. Even after the Interim Batasan was in place, he could still issue presidential decrees and not just repeal but replace any law the Batasan passed.
Changing the Constitution and system of government is serious business. Shouldn’t we go about deciding whether to change or amend it and how in a manner appropriate to its gravity? To me, the question should be, “What are we fighting about?” or better “What are we fighting for?”
A better life for our people through a more effective government with a more responsive Constitution. The rest is a means to it and secondary. Are we starting with that question or hoping to get back into it? There are ways to preserve or transition out of prerogatives and interests while achieving progress if you start with clarity of purpose and goals. To our elected officials who want to stay in power, wouldn’t this actually be the best way to achieve it? By earning it.