Adapting to change

In 1987 when we ratified our current Constitution, I wrote my news stories on a typewriter. Since I went to the office only to collect my paycheck (no ATMs yet), I filed my stories either by fax machine or by using a rotary phone in one of the enclosed cubicles at the Malacañang Press Office, where the rats were as big as cats and ghosts trudged around the wooden floors.

Desktop computers had not yet hit the Philippine market, and “portable” satellite phones were as big and heavy as car batteries. Even the pager was still some years away.

No one foresaw the emergence of a globalized economy and the rise of the digital age, and the challenges that they posed for national survival.

Instead the ghosts of martial law, the conjugal dictatorship and corrupt deals such as the Westinghouse contract for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant shaped the so-called Freedom Constitution.

The post-Marcos economy was in such a sorry state the international community agreed to pool resources to jumpstart the recovery of the newly restored Philippine democracy. Derailing recovery efforts were the numerous attempts to seize power; 1987 saw the bloodiest coup try, when Cory Aquino’s only son Noynoy was wounded and his bodyguard killed in an aerial attack on Malacañang.

Knowing from bitter experience how absolute power corrupts absolutely, framers of the Constitution made sure the basic law of the land would prevent the perpetuation of anyone in power.

The world has changed at warp speed in the past 30 years, and laws must keep up with the changes.

Since then, however, every effort to amend the Constitution has been tainted by indications that the initiative was meant to keep a person, family or political party in power in perpetuity.

We all know what happened to those initiatives.

*      *      *

Yesterday President Duterte warned that without federalism (and the Bangsamoro Basic Law), the nation could see a war in Mindanao worse than the siege of Marawi. This problem has been around since the Spanish period, however, and it will take more to sell this threat to Pinoys.

The warning also rings hollow as congressmen are seen to be exulting over the personal benefits they stand to reap from the proposed shift to federalism. Duterte could have cautioned his super majority to moderate their excitement, but now it’s too late.

Pinoys should be thankful that House members are unable to contain their celebration over the prospect of seeing their terms extended and term limits lifted.

There’s also this inane proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights, mandating the “responsible” exercise of freedom of speech and the press. But the exercise of all rights or freedoms is supposed to be responsible.

Beijing, in a half-baked attempt to show the world that it upholds human rights, released some years ago a handbook on the rights of its citizens, but also specified all the responsibilities. But that is China. Those of us from the land of people power and Asia’s most exuberant democracy should know better.

Perhaps taxpayers – meaning everyone in this country – should also demand “responsible” governance and the “responsible” use of public funds by “pork”-hungry congressmen.

*      *      *

With the House railroading of Cha-cha, the commentaries are degenerating into silliness.

The other day, for example, a congressman sneered at the resource persons invited to the Senate for consultations on Charter change, saying they were just a bunch of retired justices. Two of the resource persons – former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr. and retired Supreme Court associate justice Adolfo Azcuna – were among the framers of the Constitution.

One day the congressman who made the remark will be retired himself, but it’s unlikely he will be invited as an expert resource person on anything; he’ll never be associated with the wisdom of age.

Unlike House members working on the railroad, the discussion at the Senate was livelier and not one-sided, reflecting the complexity of what Congress is setting out to do.

Charter change can’t be rushed to begin with; the federalism express is just the lustful dream of the House super majority. Now the Senate sees Cha-cha for a shift to federalism as an existential threat, so naturally the express train has been derailed. If the Senate stands its ground, this can turn out into a battle between good and evil – not a good start for the Duterte administration’s cure-all for the nation’s ills.

There was one particular argument that resonated at the Senate discussions, from one of the so-called retired old fogeys: before shifting to federalism, Hilario Davide stressed, Congress should first pass a law on political dynasties.

For 30 years, Congress has shirked its constitutionally mandated duty to enact a law banning political dynasties. Among the state policies specified in Article II of the Constitution is that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Without such a law, Davide warned, federalism could simply turn into feudalism, with entrenched dynasties maintaining a stranglehold on local politics in each federal region.

The Ampatuan clan is just one example of what happens when a family becomes entrenched in power in this country. This issue is going to be among the biggest hindrances to the planned shift to federalism.

Congress after Congress has treated the constitutional provision like a boil or abscess that will dry up and go away, with members meanwhile happily building their dynasties.

Perhaps the public should demand the responsible exercise of legislative duties.