First Person Bulletproofed
The Senate released what they call a “manifesto” that rejected popular initiative as a method for Charter change. Our senators are being too dramatic.
The upper chamber’s concern is plain to see. They want to be assured their chamber survives any process at constitutional reform. This is simply institutional self-interest. We are not told why the nation benefits from the retention of a small but costly chamber that duplicates the legislative process needlessly.
Those initiating the process for Charter change are working with a very tight deadline. They aim to have a new charter ready for a plebiscite by midyear. All the Senate has to do is introduce complications delaying the timetable. This will ensure that nothing changes and the nation is left to wallow with this defective constitutional order.
The senators know only too well that those behind the latest Charter change effort will seek to alter not only the flawed economic provisions but the institutional arrangement as well. This will allow a rapid transition to a unicameral legislature – and possibly to a full-fledged parliamentary arrangement.
One of the defects of the 1987 Constitution is the unclear provision on how Congress could convene as a constituent assembly. The congressmen interpret this as the House and the Senate sitting together on a one-man, one-vote basis to introduce amendments. The Senate insists that the two chambers tackle proposed amendments as separate but equal bodies.
The provision for a constituent assembly is vague because the entire document, including the multi-party system, the provision for party-list participation, presumed we were having a parliamentary system. The majority of the commission appointed by Cory Aquino, all through their deliberations, were inclined to adopt a parliamentary system of government.
Towards the end of their work, some members of the commission came under great pressure from the Palace to return to the presidential system with a bicameral legislature. The presidential system was adopted by one swing vote at the last minute.
The commission failed to clean up the rest of the charter to harmonize with the belatedly adopted form of government. This sloppiness resulted in that vague provision relating to the constituent assembly.
The same sloppiness is the reason why the 1987 Constitution is bulletproofed against any amendment. All other methods for amendments are simply impracticable. The same sloppiness that gave us such a confused constitutional order also prevents us from correcting it.
Compare that with the over a dozen amendments made to the US Constitution. All those changes were made by plain legislation. This makes sense, since the Congress presumably represents the people.
The most idiotic argument made against Charter change at this time is that the current constitutional order is still “young,” having been in effect for “only” 37 years. The 1935 Constitution was in effect for only 26 years. The 1973 Constitution was junked after being in effect for only 13 years.
Over the past 37 years, we have seen how the current constitutional order malfunctions. Its obsolete economic provisions could not be amended. The Senate has become a carnival for celebrities and entrenched political families. The oligarchy tightened its grip on our economy. The country fell behind all our peers in the region because we did not have the appropriate institutions for governance.
The other argument is that groups with self-serving motives will influence the amendments process. Of course they will. The solution is to have the public fully engaged in the process to achieve the reforms the nation needs.
The 1987 Constitution is itself the product of shortsighted and self-serving interests. We re-adopted the failed presidential system only to secure Cory Aquino’s hold on power. Her closest allies feared that if we adopted the parliamentary system, Salvador Laurel will emerge the prime minister and reduce Cory to an ornamental role. This is why they pressured the reluctant commission to adopt the presidential system. It was intended exclusively to keep Laurel out of power.
The 1987 Constitution re-adopted the first-past-thepole system of district representation. This ensured that the entrenched political families will continue to control their turf. It also meant that we could never evolve a true political party system.
Without fully functional political parties, money politics prevailed. Money politics, in turn, made our political system more corrupt. The determinant role of corruption, not strategic national interest, dooms us to laggard status in an otherwise dynamic region.
We managed to introduce some reforms in our electoral system – but they backfired. Automating elections discouraged “dagdag-bawas” but it raised the costs of vote-buying, reinforcing money politics.
We introduced term limits. But the dynasties found a way around it. In Makati, icon of dynastic politics, the city mayor just announced her husband would succeed her.
Some people pin their hopes on banning “political dynasties” – a term that no one has been able to legally define. For as long as we maintain the same system of representation, our oligarchic politics will persist.
The Senate has consistently blocked all previous efforts at constitutional reform, mainly to conserve its privileged but dysfunctional role in our politics. The “manifesto” signed by all 24 sitting senators indicate this chamber will never let national interest get in the way of its institutional survival.
Even before it came into effect, the 1935 Constitution was amended to have senators elected at large. At that time, the dominant Nacionalista Party saw this as a method for conserving its hegemony. The current format is as much the result of narrow interests.