Is GMA in favor of changing the Constitution?

It may be reading too much into the news but not a few of those who understand politics in this country may have reason to be anxious that the spate of news about Congress initiating moves for changing the 1987 Constitution and the renewed PCGG interest in Landoil and Joe de V are more than coincidental. I am not against the PCGG for resurrecting yet again the Landoil case against Joe de V, if that is warranted. What I am against is if it is being used to blunt initiatives for charter change in Congress. If that is the case then, we are back into the Neanderthal ways of deadly personalistic politics which I thought was being put behind by the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP.

* * *

As far as I know, Joe de V is a loyal and staunch ally of President Arroyo. His politicking (win-win) in Congress may be distasteful to some sectors of civil society, it is his way of achieving the necessary legislation for Arroyo’s economic program. You may not agree with his style but it works in the less than perfect political environment that he has to work in for democratic governance. This is better than not working at all. Still, he should answer PCGG (yet again!) with "finality". But once done, his colleagues in Congress should soldier on and get on with the consultations with barangay assemblies as planned. This is the right step to take. It strengthens democracy. The very act of consultation by the congressmen with their constituents on charter change is reformist. It will reverse a mindset that has been with us in old politics in which lawmakers /politicians once elected generally take their constituents for granted.

* * *

(This column received before going to press a restatement from Landoil lawyer Arturo de Castro who said in part: The summary judgment in favor of Speaker de Venecia constitutes res judicata and the law of the case which may no longer be re-litigated: It is based on the admission of the Government as affirmed by the Supreme Court, as follows: "The admission was made when, after conducting its own investigation, it found out that 1) de Venecia was not a crony but a victim of Marcos; 2) the guarantee extended by the private respondents as members of the board of Directors of Philguarantee were given in the ordinary and regular course of business and that no favor was accorded to the Landoil officers in the frant of such guarantee facility (Decision G.G. 92594, p 16, Ibid).

* * *

One of the most laudable examples from the British parliamentary system is the availability of MPs (members of parliament) for what the British call ‘surgery.’ The use of the medical term means it is akin to a medical appointment (the constituent cannot be turned down). During our campaign for Filipinos with problems while in exile in London, we took advantage of this "surgery hour" to bring their cases to MPs who helped them. Surgery means setting aside a day in the week when MPs devote their time to constituents. Anyone living within the catchment area is entitled to an appointment with his or her MP either to air a grievance or make a proposal for parliamentary consideration.

* * *

According to sources, a recent straw vote in Congress gave an overwhelming vote in favor of charter change. But such a vote is not enough and the congressmen’s preference may be rightfully accused to be self-serving. The vote must be underpinned by informing their constituents and finally achieving a consensus between politicians and the people they serve. I hope they will keep the issues simple and understandable to the greater number. I do not mean that they should be patronizing but more often than not I have seen politicians who do not bother to explain political issues in terms that are relevant to ordinary Filipinos’ daily life. Certainly there must be a way to explain to barrio people that in a federalist set-up the resources of the province remain in the province. The catch is that their well-being and fortunes will depend on themselves and therefore encourages initiative and hard work. Furthermore it will be easier to track accountability whether congressman, governor or mayor if they fail to provide services. Kung walang tubig or walang mga iskwela they know who to blame and who not to vote for, tapos. Politics is There should be no excuses.

* * *

One objection of those who are against charter change is the fear that opening the Constitution for amendments might go out of hand. This is a normal fear but one that I think can and should be overcome. This is, after all, the challenge that distinguishes an open society from a closed one. The answer is notto forego change or debate but to design institutions that will best serve freedom of expression and the intelligent participation of as many citizens as possible. People who choose life in an open society are not afraid of differences of opinion. I like to think that is what Filipino society is about. The challenge is to strengthen the rule of law and improve the conduct of elections and plebiscites so we are able to resolve/settle differences of opinion peacefully and justly at the end of the day.

* * *

Opinions from readers. David Murphy, an intelligent and diligent reader of STAR columns (he also writes letters to co-columnist Art M. Borjal), speculates that President GMA may be in favor of charter change but is holding back for her own reasons. He writes:

I enjoyed your column on Thursday. I especially agree with your point about the importance of symbols. Symbolic significance, to my mind, develops spontaneously and can be either positive or negative. You can create a statue but not symbolism. My impression is that the Philippines has a vast number of symbols. The Mayon volcano is a symbol of the natural beauty of the Philippines. The Pasig River and Manila Bay are symbols of the environmental degradation of the country. The monuments along EDSA and elsewhere in Metro Manila have become symbols of your political struggles.

* * *

I feel that there is a sort of momentum or inertia that government institutions acquire over time that brings a kind of stability or solidity that the Philippines is still in the process of developing. Perhaps these institutions gain that inertia (like a large ship, slow to change direction and speed when underway as well as being hard to get moving), in part because they acquire a symbolic status beyond their physical and utilitarian existence.

* * *

Regarding constitution changes, I have no experience with parliamentary government and being old and set in my ways am therefore leery of it. I expect that an analog of federalism will develop naturally, as a consequence of technology and globalization. Nations are relics of forces of the past. New forces may well produce economic or political cooperatives of small, relatively homogenous autonomous units, based on culture, language, religion or other criteria. Perhaps federalism is the wave of the future.

* * *

On the larger issue of amending the constitution, I suspect tha President Arroyo is strongly in favor of it. She is too good a technocrat to miss the benefits that a properly revised constitution could offer. She is also too good a politician not to recognize that her approval would likely be the kiss of death for the proposal. It would also require the expenditure of political capital which she needs in order to ride herd on this crazy bunch of personalities that constitute the Filipino legislature and local governments.

* * *

Even in my brief exposure to the Philippines I saw the response to proposals for constitutional change under the Ramos and the Estrada administrations. The level of distrust (not merely lack of trust but active mistrust) of politicians is so high among all citizens that the worst thing that President Arroyo could do at this time is to appear eager to change the constitution. Even on trivial matters, anything she does is subjected to all kinds of allegations of ulterior motives; the sad legacy of the Marcos era will distort Filipino politics for many administrations. Everything that she had done to date convinces me that President Arroyo is very much in touch with the political realities of the Philippines and that she is adroitly maneuvering her programs through the hazards.

* * *

In little more than a year she has built a stable administration. That alone is a remarkable feat. Consider the status of the government in January and February or even May of last year and contrast it with the present. (I sense some prudent concern about the coming Labor Day but no one seems seriously alarmed.) And she did all this while handling challenges that would have tested the limits of the strongest administration: lawlessness, insurrection, influential military. Well, you can enumerate them better than I. The legitimacy of her administration reflects an implicit recognition of how well she has faced these challenges.

* * *

From the US, Alex Cirera (e-mail [email protected]) wrote: We are a monthly community newspaper distributed free of charge to Filipino-Americans in Chicago and its suburbs. We have just published our maiden issue last month and our second one is coming out on April 15. Our goal is to educate, unify and empower the Filipino American community. (Please see attached document stating our vision and mission.)

* * *

We read your article on unity published by the Philippine STAR today and we absolutely agree with what you wrote. Sad to say, the political circus that we have at home is replicated in the many Filipino American organizations and communities abroad. We are certain that your article will help enlighten our readers on the urgent need for unity if we want to uplift and empower not just the Filipino American community but those at home, too. May we request your permission to reprint this article?

* * *

My e-mail address: [email protected]