Our flawed democracy requires legislative humility
THE ongoing hearings at the Senate on the people’s initiative (PI) of the House of Representatives confirmed what the public knew all along. That it was the House that plotted the whole Charter change effort using so-called useful idiots as fronts for the people’s initiative. The House puppet masters hardly covered their tracks though and sheepishly claimed they were just “facilitators of a democratic effort” after the unraveling of their plot. Again, as expected, it was the opponents of Charter change that came to the Senate hearings with words of constitutional wisdom and warnings on legislative overreach. They also cautioned that the economic miracle that the proponents said would take place post-amendment is a mirage and has no basis in reality.
The statement that stood out in particular because of its pinpoint practicality and deep grounding on democratic tradition came from retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza. He simply said that changing the Constitution is not a mandate of the legislature because its assigned role, and a big one at that in the democratic setting because there are only three branches of government, is legislation.
The other high point at the hearings was this. An exasperated senator, tired of listening to yarns and improbable spins on a supposed growth surge after the lifting of the so-called economic restrictions in the Constitution, sought some relief from the verbal overload and requested the Charter change proponents to present “facts, not biased, self-serving opinions.”
If the two chambers of Congress ever have a role in the constitutional change effort, it is a peripheral one, and now, meaning at this time and at this period and at this critical juncture of our political life, is not even an ideal time to exercise that tangential function, said Justice Mendoza. The legislature has more serious matters to attend to than changing some provisions of the Constitution.
Of course, the most compelling advice from one with a profound grasp of the Constitution and who ruled on constitutional issues during his time at the high court fell on deaf ears. And the reason is simple enough.
The lead men in the Charter change efforts at the House are the billionaire contractors who are probably the most powerful voices in the small posse of powerful congressmen around Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Men of power and wealth who have the least understanding of and reverence for the Constitution. To these men of power, for example, the Federalist Papers is probably a real estate concern because it rhymes with Federal Land, which is indeed a Philippine real estate giant. But it is this same cluelessness on what democracies are and what the mandates of democratic institutions like the legislative branch are that equips them with the hubris to precisely do the opposite of Justice Mendoza’s message, which is to tame and rein in the legislative overreach.
It is logical. Those with no respect for the Constitution, or a rudimentary understanding of why a Constitution is written and held in deep reverence, are in the best position to lead the assault on the Constitution.
To these powerful congressmen, nothing is inviolable and sacrosanct, and everything, including the fate of the Constitution, can be negotiated and transacted, most especially with the right incentives. Democratic verities and defined mandates of the democratic institutions and the sanctity of the Constitution are for losers, like their colleague Edcel Lagman, to uphold. With that mindset, inserting in the national budget a jumbo fund, passed under the guise of a social safety net, to fund a signature drive for the Charter change effort is eminently justified. And they think they are clever or “madiskarte” for it.
Not one of the powerful operators around Mr. Romualdez will go to jail for exercising legislative overreach and for their brazen disrespect for democratic traditions. Not one will be meted with the slightest of sanctions. But the broader world, especially the global institutions tracking the performances of democracies, takes notice of these brazen exercises of legislative overreach and power grabs.
The 2023 Democracy Index released by the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) recently showed a democracy not on the mend, not a democracy carrying out “structural changes” for
the better under Bagong Pilipinas, but one mildly sliding in the rankings (down by one from the 2022 ranking) and with low scores on two of the five major democracy indicators used by the EIU.
With 10 as the ideal score, the Philippines scored 4.64 percent in “functioning of government” and posted its lower score of 4.38 in “political culture.” The Philippines scored 7 percent or better in the electoral process and pluralism, political participation, and civil liberties.
The legislative overreach of the House, the brazen and bribe-undergirded attempt to initiate and fund a constitutional initiative through its useful idiots, only takes place in flawed democracies, not in mature democracies where the co-equal branches of government are all respectful of their respective mandates.
Only 1 percent of the population sees an urgency in constitutional change, the least of the worries of the citizens who want the government to focus on better job creation, the reining in of inflation and bread-and-butter issues. Only in flawed democracies do we see hubristic congressmen plotting to change the Constitution by means foul and fouler, contrary to the wishes and plaints and clamor of the governed, their constituencies.
Is not democracy, you idiots and useful idiots, defined as the “voice of the people”?
What is a political culture where the “worst are full of passionate intensity” and the good “lack all conviction”?
That kind of political culture is the kind that thrives in our flawed democracy, which the EIU duly noticed. That was the reason for our 4.38 percent score in “political culture.”
How do we reverse the perception of the democracy trackers and improve our scores? The first step is for the legislative branch to get ample doses of humility. Then a little bit more, until it shall have inhabited its true place in the public sphere.
We should definitely do something to prevent the slide of our democratic norms. To prevent a possible slide into the list of nondemocracies. Or, the slide to the worst possible place — a banana republic.