Unwanted legacies

The President’s Constitutional Commission (Concom) fired its opening salvo against Philippine politics’ most enduring feature, the political dynasty. With one momentous blow, the President’s band of 20 shed anonymity and announced its arrival to an indifferent public. 

It was the Concom’s first unanimous vote and it was a pivotal one. A regulated ban on dynasties, up to the 2nd degree. It’s been 32 years since the anti dynasty provision was etched in Constitutional granite. Since then, the Philippine situation has retrogressed to where we have become a world leader in political dynasties. This Concom vote frees the anti dynasty edict from its stone prison and throws it down as gauntlet before a lethargic Congress.

I accept. Already, Senate President (SP) Koko Pimentel has taken up the challenge. Why stop at regulation he asks. Why not a total ban? The SP has been a lifelong advocate of a law to define political dynasties to finally execute the Constitutional command. He fought this lonely battle in so many Congresses. We empathize with his fulfillment, seeing this watershed vote validate his mighty efforts.

With SP at the helm, the anti-dynasty proposal should rouse the needed critical mass in the Senate. This will be crucial to its chances of passage whether as a provision in a ConAss or as ordinary legislation. The Concom proposal and the Senate’s support bolster the clamor for reform that will surely ring in the House’s deafened ears.

Without a clue. The other battle front is … we, the people. In the latest survey (2016, Pulse Asia), 34 percent of respondents said they would still vote for dynasty candidates. 32 percent said they would not. The remaining 34 percent stayed undecided. The confusion is not confusing when you realize that the cost to include all would be to exclude some.

There is an excellent treatment of the contending arguments in the 1986 Constitutional Commission debates with Commissioners Jose Nolledo, Christian Monsod and Blas Ople in key roles. The emphatic plea was to not curtail voters’ freedom of full and free choice. In the opposite corner was the bid to equate equal opportunity with equality of circumstances when accessing public service.

One of the allies of SP Koko in this crusade was the late, great Miriam Defensor Santiago. She wondered aloud how something unconstitutional could be legal just because of the absence of an implementing law. Sen. Defensor-Santiago is being nominated for the Quezon Cross. Those who want to honor her memory could do worse than to adopt this provision, giving meaning to one of the great labors of her extraordinary public career.

The last hurdle. Under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s administration, the Senate has followed the model of the higher chamber envisioned by the founding fathers. One which guards against the abuses of Executive power and, at the same time, serves as coolant to the overheating passions that find expression in the lower House. 

The Constitution institutionalizes this role in provisions like the Impeachment process where the Senate sits as the objective court in contrast to the House’s subjective prosecutor; the longer term and older age requirement; the leadership of the Commission on Appointments where Senators outnumber Congressmen 13 to 12 and the Senate President sits as presiding officer.

A question of quorum. The Chief Justice’s day of reckoning in the House is expected to happen next week. If the House  committee on justice and its working group manages to produce suitable draft articles of impeachment, the committee vote should push through as scheduled. Target date is on Tuesday, March 20. The tightrope act continues until the last two days of session, March 21 and 22, with House managers having to squeeze in a plenary floor debate. It may or may not be full blown. The midnight oil will be burning at the Batasan Tuesday and Wednesday night as congressional staff wrestle with producing hard copies and marking and refining their contents. Congressmen will be hard at work seeing through this Constitutional function which is fast becoming a regular feature of succeeding administrations.

A mere 1/3rd vote of the House impeaches the Chief Justice. To convict her, a supermajority of 2/3rd is required of the Senate. With a Senate of 24 members, she has to be guilty in the eyes of at least 16 Senators for her to be removed.

Sinister scenarios. We anticipate the effort to apply 22 as base instead of 24. The argument will be that Senator Alan Peter Cayetano already resigned to serve as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Senator Leila de Lima now lives and works exclusively in Camp Crame. Instead of 16 votes to convict, the push may be for the easier 14 (which is 2/3rd of 22).  We have been hearing this proposition openly discussed in covens where antagonists congregate.

But the Constitution speaks of conviction by a majority of “all the members.” Jurisprudence has confirmed this to mean using the total number of positions as a base and not the total number of incumbents. The stately Senate has already shot down this curious theory of 14 by clarifying that 16 is the magic number.

Tidbit. Happy 18th Birthday to my dearest son, Ernest Alexander.