Something good happened in 2005

Well, more than good if one includes the implications of the event. I am speaking of the distaste for people power in the streets. It is not as the critics would put it ‘insensitivity’ to political issues that ordinary people are avoiding EDSAs. On the contrary, I think Filipinos have inched forward politically since 1986. It may not be welcome to those who did not calculate the change but in the long term all of us gain from this development.

Filipinos would like to make up their own minds instead of being corralled into a partisan masked as a moral cause. They are now looking for avenues for change other than extra-constitutional ways of protest. That is why charter change is slowly but surely gaining adherents. At the same time that it is political redress, it gives us an opportunity to build stable institutions. It is not unreasonable to say that we either have a constitutional change or a revolution whether peaceful or violent. Others may think that the Garci scandal is the top story of the year but so is its counterpoint and that is – its failure to dislodge President GMA.

* * *

Why the fuss if Concom members give differing reasons on why they voted for no elections in 2007. Isn’t that something good? Indeed these different views should assure the public. There are as many reasons as there are individuals who voted for it. Some have said it was meant to persuade (bribe) senators, congressmen/women and local officials to support charter change. (Wrong, since the extension of terms is an option and those who do not want the ‘bribe’ are free to reject it outright. But they should not deprive others who want to take it on and continue serving in an interim parliament.) There were still others who voted for it because the space is needed for a smooth transition from presidential to parliamentary form of government.

One of those who gave good arguments for ‘no-elections’ in 2007 is Commissioner Raul Lambino. A former Erap follower, at first he was for elections but changed his mind in the second round. To him, the postponement of elections in 2007 will impact on the kind of interim government that will have to be put up in the period of transition before we have a regular parliament.

He said whether we like it or not we have a President and a Vice President who are legally entitled to serve office up to June 30, 2010. They head the executive department at present. He also cites 12 Senators elected in 2004 who have the same right to their terms of office until June 30, 2010. They lead the other half of the legislative department. The other half of the Senators and congressmen/women expire on June 30, 2007.

"There must be a transition with the establishment of an interim government that will be composed of the incumbent elected and appointed officials of the land," he explained. He adds that in the transition, the challenge was how to devolve a smooth transfer of powers from the presidency to the regular parliament. This must be done to ensure that no serious dislocations or disruptions of governance take place. Then we have to reform our electoral process. We have to remove the judicial powers of the Commission on Elections, establish a two-party system, generally reorganize Comelec, and reestablish the Board of Election Inspectors in every precinct, etc. etc." All these much needed reforms must be put in place before credible elections can take place in our country. It requires time, resources and statutes to be enacted by the legislature (parliament)," he argues.

There cannot be two interim parliaments especially if there is already an election of new members of the parliament; second, there cannot be any credible election in this country unless the reforms are set in place, to hold one will put democracy in greater danger; third, this will allow the healing of political wounds among our leaders to give them time to strengthen their political organizations towards the formation of strong party system," he wrote.

Some might not care about the cost of elections in 2007 (an astronomical sum of more than P12 billion) but others do and I suspect they are more significant and wish the amount should be used for social services (My own inclination is to use it for education to prepare our youth, the teeming millions out of whom will come our future leaders). It just shows you that the commissioners voted with their own mind and it is not such a bad thing. The very close vote between the two sides also refuted any criticism that the vote was rigged or that the commissioners were beholden to President GMA. In fact the commissioners continue their debate in public and we can only welcome it as long it does not descend to name-calling or insults.

It is not enough for the pro-elections partisans to say that we should have elections because the ‘people’ expect it. I challenge all those who are for elections to make sure that elections in 2007 will be foolproof or at least credible.

The bottom line of an election under a reformed system is to make it possible for qualified Filipinos without money or popularity to enter the political arena. I notice that those for elections are the same characters behind our money or popularity contests pretending to be ‘democratic.’

By the way, even the oppositionist Black and White movement has said there will be no credible elections without electoral reforms and asks for a new commission of elections with members who are competent and fair. It must adopt modern and transparent systems with meaningful citizen participation in voter registration, vote casting, counting, and canvassing and a truth commission must be convened to uncover electoral fraud in the 2004 elections. And what is the stand of the present Comelec in the debate? Why, we must have elections of course or it would be undemocratic!

* * *

Most disappointing is Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel. Once I asked why he continued to support incompetent actors for president. Without batting an eyelash he said he may think differently in private but getting the popular vote is another. I do not agree with his view that to cancel the 2007 elections and extend the term of elective officials is against public policy and constitutional principle. If we need to rationalize our system of governance, we will rationalize it. He and his colleagues in the Senate are against charter change and have always been.

Lastly, instead of bellyaching against no-election in 2007, those for elections must put their money where their mouth is and ensure that come 2007, someone without money, movie popularity or machinery can win and become a member of parliament. If not, then the pro-els do not have the moral high ground.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]