Headline talk
THIS will tackle two issues given attention by recent headlines: 1) Palace reaction to Vice President Jejomar Binay’s pioneering campaign to lift “term limits” and 2) Prominent figures casting a long shadow over never dying attempts at a FederalParliamentary shift in government during a gathering at Club Filipino.
Noticeably obvious in both disquisitions were the shortness in memory by personalities involved in presenting historical context. In these instances, the critic on one side and the advocate on the other cited secondary references or more recent history to make their points viable. And understandably so. By intentionally avoiding recollection of earliest evidentiary experience as basis, views on these issues seemed prodigious, the arguments salient. Call it selective memory gaps or intellectual dishonesty; it is avoidance to tackle what was a won and settled debate long ago, based on what was a working formula and enduring system.
On the matter of VP Binay’s proposal, Malacanang re-echoed the President’s opposition since this would give rise to the entrenchment of power and abuse, as in the days of martial law. However, VP Binay’s campaign focuses on lifting “term limits” for local officials and not for Presidents. Obviously the Palace misread the proposal. Such a recommendation takes umbrage from the enduring and better-crafted 1935 Constitution embodying the “Quezon Formula” of four years with one re-election. The martial law regime was clearly a mutation to the general experience under the Quezon estimation effective under many presidents. Ironically when the 6-year term under the 1987 Cory Charter was introduced, this gave rise to heightened adventurism – coups and people power – since it was too long for “regrettable choices,” or an initially good president gone astray remaining in office. As between Manuel Quezon and PNoy on governance, it’s a no-contest.
On the 2nd matter of parliamentary-federal, the proponents dare to go against the founding caveat of Rizal, Bonifacio, etc., to unite as a people aware of how ethnic cleavages were the bane to national liberation. Federalism instead is emphasized, since we are multi-cultured! Did they mention a duplication of bureaucracy under the system? Meaning it will be very expensive for the taxpayer. C u r i o u s l y, i s t h i s w h a t M a l a y s i a wants? To facilitate a Bangsa timeline declaration of “independence.” Are these senior advocates for the shift, lecturing 50-M plus voters to surrender individual national vote and allow 200 members of Parliament to capture and syndicate Philippine politics, dictating the future for them? If the intention is to empower and share the national wealth with local governments, the better formula is for the Lower House (who mirrors local sentiments) to pass a law on: 1) Automatic retention by LGUs on locally collected taxes or Internal Revenue Allotments and 2) increasing the percentages for local vs. national wealth sharing (recall BBL).