Summit on Charter change

The public debate on constitutional reform continues, and organizations concerned with having a more responsive, trustworthy system of governance, have been holding summits to enlighten people on why such constitutional change should be made. The latest held yesterday was a "People’s Summit on Constitutional Reform", sponsored by the Consultative Group for Constitutional Reform with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

* * *

I left the forum before the scheduled presentation of a resolution to House Speaker Jose de Venecia, but I imagine that the draft of the resolution would be accepted by the participants, numbering about 800 and representing various sectors, from labor to women, urban poor, business people and professionals, Muslim and "global" Filipinos (whatever that means).

A host of related topics were presented by a formidable panel of speakers who talked about the need for charter change; who would make amendments to the constitution – a constituent assembly or a constitutional conventional –; the federal system of government, the parliamentary form, and proposed economic reforms.

The panel of speakers was formidable – including Sen. Nene Pimentel who lobbied for federalism (this topic deserves a near-future column); Representatives Eduardo B. Nachura and Arthur D. Defensor – the two major proponents of the contesting modes to work on charter change (constituent assembly and constitutional convention); Lito Monico Lorenzana, former DOTC Secretary Amado Lagdameo, political scientist Dr. Joel Rocamora and economist Dr. Alberto Fenix, Jr.

* * *

The draft resolution reflected the convenors’ understanding of the public’s demand for change. It cited the "frustrations of the citizenry because of the weaknesses and defects inherent in the present bicameral presidential system many Filipinos’ "seeking bold alternatives to politics base on money and popularity – the forces behind graft and corruption." It said the signers were shamed "that despite bountiful resources and talents, the country continues to lag behind other countries in Southeast Asia because of its inability to meet the challenges of modernization under the present political set-up."

The draft recalled the declaration of the First Political Parties Summit of May 2002, in which the signers asserted the necessity to introduce major changes to the present charter" in a manner that is open transparent and broadly participatory." It further said that there was "a strong sentiment" in support of a constitutional convention" to be elected in 2004 to propose the changes.

* * *

Yesterday’s draft said that "mindful of the constant costly gridlocks" between the executive, the House of Representatives and the Senate "and our present inability to quickly respond to changing national and global situations (the signers) favor a shift from the presidential to a parliamentary system."

It also said that "Conscious of our people’s growing clamor for real autonomy and civic participation and aware of the importance of increasing stakeholdership in our republic, we support the adoption of a federal system of government to be in place not later than 2010."

The draft’s dispositive portion called on the President and legislators to determine the proper mode for amending the Constitution – constitutional convention or constituent assembly.

Speakers at the summit made jokes about the opposition to ConAss or ConCon as wanting to eliminate the Senate or Congress. There was no serious talk, though, on the advantages of unicameralism (that is, one body of legislators) as opposed to the present bicameral system whose two Houses – the Senate and Congress – often end up in "gridlocks", nixing each other’s bills without compunction.

* * *

Representative Nachura expressed optimism about the smooth sailing of ConAss through Congress. He said that yesterday, the Lower House was going to discuss House Concurrent Resolution No. 16, calling Congress to sit as a ConAss and propose amendments to the Charter regarding the form of government to be adopted, revision of economic provisions, and providing for the transition from one form of government to another. As of yesterday, the Senate was headstrong in supporting a ConCon, with a vote of 12 votes, while the House garnered 116 votes (or a majority). So there remains a deadlock: with the Senate for a ConCon, and the House for, a ConAss. Hopefullly, the two houses will settle their differences and produce what hopefully will be good for the country.

* * *

Rocamora, convenor for the Consortium for Constitutional reform, expressed the view that there is more to be done than determining which mode to adopt in order to turn things around. A paper he gave me said that past events (such as the Estrada presidency and EDSA 2 and EDSA 3, the chaotic May 2001 elections and the threat of an FPJ candidacy) had converged to "heighten a sense of political crisis in the political class. Although inchoate, the crisis is a crisis of representation, a deep and abiding concern about the ability of our political institutions to produce competent and trustworthy leaders. Members of the House are understandably hurt by talk of lack of trust in our congress persons. They should not take it personally. Though there are members of the house who habitually ‘follow the money’ positions, in general, our congress persons are not any less trustworthy than our other officials."

Rocamora agrees with "congress persons" on "curbing the powers of the presidency, on the resources wasted on a bicameral legislative process, on the need to unite executive and legislative powers in a parliament. As important as such a change is to provide greater coherence to our policy-making process, this does not cut to the core of our crisis of representation. Without changes in our electoral system, you will not strengthen our political parties. Without political parties capable of organizing the legislative process and bridging the executive and legislative branches of government, as essential ingredient of parliamentary systems will be missing. You will then have the worst of both the presidential and parliamentary systems."

* * *

My email address: [email protected]