Punishing the partylist system
Upon its circulation in social media prior to discourses on legitimate fora, the draft Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) calling for a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution had immediately raised questions where the document bore the names of two neophyte senators neither of whom has had previous lawmaking experience.
Casual bystanders noticed the authors, and then they noticed the content of the RBH. It is the stigma of Philippine personality and identity politics to first notice persons behind a proposition before delving into its substance. And on both, however, the public was justifiably wary. Admittedly, in today’s political milieu, experience and educational background, even intelligence, no longer predicate being a member of such an august body. Times and mores have changed. Warped, if you will. Popularity and political support suffice. It is one of those unfortunate realities as mass media develops into an increasingly powerful political catalyst that gradually obscures analytical criteria and, in its place, replaces substance with form. The resulting composition the legislature is incontrovertible proof. So is the quality of legislation and the kind of debate founding the kind of laws passed these days.
On the part of a public wary of political undertones, however, being a person of letters is likewise not needed to notice the names of the two who could not have imagined themselves as senators of the republic when they started their careers, one as a bus conductor and the other as a resort town local executive. It is a testament to their grit and gall that they have made it to where they can now influence and be so bold as to propose rewriting the very basis for all laws.
At the bottom of the RBH, both appended their campaign nicknames perhaps to specifically identify them and thus differentiate them among the legion of other De la Rosas and Tolentinos that populate the Senate. A sterling record of relevant legislation would have been the better alternative, but nicknames suffice.
Never mind that such colloquialism erases a good deal of the importance of what they propose. Never mind also that the overall intellectual capacity of a whole political society is reduced where imagery influences and reigns. Everyone is a peddler and nicknames have become the new normal.
All the foregoing alludes to the unfortunate reality of name and power politics rather than the common good are the primary catalysts for legislation. This is evident from the sidelining of the public welfare in place of political ambition.
To validate, allow us to discuss what substance the RBH has in its current form.
Even to the casual, non-technical albeit politically-averse casual reader of the RBH, its substance seemed sorely inadequate to justify the risks it undertakes. That it was afforded debate was due to the timing of the proposition, the risk-averse nature and underlying fears and distrust of the public and the rather bold and brazen unexpected authorship from legislators short of experience if not on qualifications.
What the RBH’s original recitals did not show was that the objective of the initiative to tamper with the Constitution was to either punish or totally kill the partylist system. Given that there are other less radical ways to improve the partylist system without jeopardizing the whole constitution, we are left to worry what other secret agenda are there that remains undeclared?
“What
the RBH’s original recitals did not show was that the objective of the initiative to tamper with the Constitution was to either punish or totally kill the partylist system.
“Admittedly, in today’s political milieu, experience and educational background, even intelligence, no longer predicate being a member of such an august body.