Are Filipinos Ready For Charter Change

Are Filipinos ready for Charter Change? http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200504159801 .htm Not too many Filipinos are aware of the real issues behind the clamor to amend the Constitution, let alone have a full grasp of the specific and accompanying revisions in the 1987 Constitution being firmed up and debated on by lawmakers. A recent survey conducted by an independent thinkthank group, IBON Foundation, showed that a significant number of Filipinos are still either undecided or unaware of the issue, with only 33.6 percent of respondents saying they are aware of the issue. This was slightly up though from the 32.9 percent recorded in a similar survey conducted previously. Majority of Filipinos are also not too eager to amend the Constitution by next year to allow a shift to a parliamentary form of government, according to the survey conducted last June 30 to July 9. Some 44.5 percent of Filipinos are actually not in favor of Charter Change. This was higher than the 38.1 percent who disagreed with the propoal in the previous IBON survey conducted last April. The number of those who support Constitutional amendments also fell from 29 percent in April to 21.83 percent in the recent survey. IBON partly attributed Filipinos’ continued opposition to Charter change to the perceived motives of politicians to consolidate greater political power. Most of the respondents in the IBON survey also wanted President Arroyo to focus her attention on improving living conditions as well as curb corruption during her first 100 days in office. The political party system particularly comes under fire for being "immature," said IBON research director Antonio Tujan Jr. "Thus, under a parliamentary system, the coalitional party can degenerate into an authoritarian majority." The common argument among lawmakers and analysts is whether the Philippines is mature enough politically to depart from the present presidential form of government. The question now is: Should political maturity come first before Charter change? According to a political analyst and leading proponent of Charter Change, political maturity follows the makeover of a system. "(Political) maturity comes with the change of institution," Dr. Jose Abueva, chairman of the advisory committee of the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP), said. In an interview with philstar.com, Abueva pointed out that the basic problems of governance and public administration are rooted in the nation’s "obsolete" political system that obstructs lasting solutions to poverty and underdevelopment. Philippine politics, which is beset with divisiveness

and an undisciplined party system on top of the persistent problems of poverty, population explosion and widening budget deficit, is ripe for change, said Abueva, who was secretary in the Constitutional Convention (Con-con) in 1971. "It is a "challenging information effort" to educate Filipinos of what good a shift in government style will do for the country," he said. Finding a cure A parliamentary form can "cure" the country’s "undisciplined" political party system, Abueva said. But it will not be enough to bring about progress in this poverty-stricken country. It is by transforming the highly centralized unitary-presidential to a parliamentary-federal system that bold reforms will be pursued and attained, he said. By changing the system, government will be closer to the people and political parties will be transformed progressively, he added. "Political parties will become strong, stable, disciplined and programoriented organizations to mobilize the participation of citizens in the affairs of government," the CMFP proposal on Charter change said. Even as majority of lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are presently pro-administration, this does not automatically translate into full backing of Mrs. Arroyo’s proposed legislations, it noted. Political bickering and constant party switching have been known to hinder work at Congress in the past. Under the current system, the executive must also engage in lengthy debates and lobbying with the two chambers of Congress before a bill can be passed. "Under the present political party system, GMA has the huge majority in the House and a comfortable majority in the Senate but it does not mean she has the support of the legislature," Abueva said. He said the country’s political system will be transformed because political parties will be competing with each other in attracting support from the people. "Parliament will consist of 100 more seats (in the House) than those regularly elected by districts. But it should not exceed 300 because it is expensive. The 100 will be reserved for distribution to the political parties according to the total votes they get nationwide. What does this mean? It is a big incentive for the parties. Get more votes so that they can get a bigger share in the 100 seats," Abueva explained. It is through the reformed political parties that the national government and local governments will be more accountable to the people, Abueva said. And the President could be the "transforming" rather than a "reforming" president that she can be if her push to revise the 1987 Constitution to accommodate her proposed change in government takes place, Abueva pointed out.

"At least now, there is general awareness on the part of our leaders (in Congress). They realize that our (present presidential) system is flawed," the former president of the state-owned University of the Philippines said, citing the prolonged applause Mrs. Arroyo received from legislators during her state-ofthe-nation address last month when she called for revising the country’s Charter next year to allow for a parliamentary form of government. Past leaders and the political elite," Abueva said, have continued the practice of our colonial masters and have allowed Manila to remain centralized. The unitary-presidential structure in the Philippines dates back to American colonial rule. "They did not have the imagination to break away from the past. Being creative means changing the form of government," Abueva stressed. The daunting task for the Arroyo administration is ensuring that the public is well informed of what Charter change is all about in the first place to pave the way for support from Filipinos, majority of whom are living in poverty. "That is a tall order," Abueva admitted when asked how the President would be able to convince the people that changing the form of government would prove to be beneficial to them.

The CMFP proposal According to Abueva, there are two main compelling reasons why the Philippines needs to adopt a different form of government: a defective presidential system and a dysfunctional political party system. The parliamentary-federal system being proposed by the CMFP will see the national government only responsible for national security and defense, foreign relations, currency and monetary policy, citizenship, human rights, customs and immigration issues, among other functions of a federal government. All other socio-economic functions and government services that impact directly on the lives of the people will be the responsibility of ten regional governments or States and their local governments. This is true in countries like Malaysia, India, Canada, Australia and Federal Republic of Germany, the CMFP noted. The 10 proposed states under a federal form are Northern Luzon-Cordillera, Central Luzon, Metro Manila, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, West VisayasPalawan, East Visayas, North and West Mindanao, Bangsamoro and Central and South Mindanao.

He, however, said Mrs. Arroyo can "persuade" the people if she continues to provide basic services to them.

Under the parliament, the executive and legislative powers are combined. The leader of the majority party or coalition is elected as Prime Minister by parliament as well as members of the Cabinet.

Abueva expressed confidence that the President can make it happen, citing a well enough performance in office for three and a half years before she got a new six-year term in the May 10 elections.

According to the CMFP proposal, parliament shall be bicameral. Members of the "House of the People" will be elected in the parliamentary districts and by "proportional representation" of the political parties.

"GMA, in her first three and a half years in office was able to demonstrate that the government can deliver services which are mandated by law and to which money has been appropriated. Kulang (It was not enough) but there is delivery and she can persuade the people where the money will go because she’s trying to demonstrate all the time that she is trying to help like in housing, social welfare etc.," he explained.

The CMFP argued that while some supporters of parliamentary government want to have a unicameral legislature, another house in the parliament is needed "to represent and promote the rights and interest of the States."

And having a vice president popular to the masses by her side could also do the trick.

"The members of the House and States - much smaller in number - shall be chosen by the State Assemblies," it said. "Every state or regional government shall have an elective State Assembly that also combines executive and legislative power."

"It should not be difficult for her to convince the people with (Vice President) Noli de Castro helping, that is why she is using Noli as a way to make her communicate to the public," Abueva said. The CFMP, which advocates Charter change through constitutional convention, has been developing its draft on constitutional reforms for over three years. It conducts research and consults with local political leaders and scholars from different universities across the country. A constitutional convention means that people would have to elect who will amend the Constitution. Another way of amending the Charter though is to transform Congress into a constitutional assembly.

This will ensure the states’ or regional governments’ autonomy, powers, functions and resources vis-à-vis the federal government, it said.

The regional government elects the leader of the majority party or coalition as the State Governor who then forms a State Cabinet "made up mostly of members of the State Assembly. A voter, Abueva said, will vote for a member of the parliament in his district and the national party of choice. He will also vote for a member of the State Assembly and the party of his choice. The CMFP is also proposing a special article in the Constitution that will acquaint political parties on their roles as members of the system. Another

proposal is the inclusion of a "bill of duties and obligations" of Filipino citizens. "This will be accompanied by a reform in the electoral system," Abueva said. GMA as Prime Minister? If the Charter is revised before the 2007 polls, Mrs. Arroyo can be prime minister, owing to the six-year mandate she was given in the May 10 elections, Abueva said. "Certainly she cannot be deprived of her right because she was elected to a six-year term. So she can continue to be head of government and head of state but only until 2010," he said, referring to the expiration of Mrs. Arroyo’s term, adding that Parliament has a term of only five years. If the shift to parliamentary-federal form is established by 2007, a new prime minister will be elected in 2010 after Mrs. Arroyo’s term ends, Abueva explained. "But it can also be provided that the President’s term be extended for two years but not as prime minister, just a member of parliament," he said, noting this can be provided for in the transitory provision in the constitutional revision. "Wholesale changes" will be introduced in the Charter, Abueva said as two articles will be affected: the presidency and Congress. "When two whole articles are changed, it is already a revision. An amendment is like just changing the term of a president," he said.

Parliamentary vs Bi-cameral-Presidencial Pros - No Actor/Bogus president - Fast Law enactment - No need to wait for 6 years to replace a PM. A parliamentarian invoking a 'No vote of confidence' supported by majority votes is sufficient [hence, no need to go to street and stage people power revolt] Cons - Traditional Politicians rules [hmm better than a bogus president] Federal Govt vs Republic Pros - Country's wealth evenly distributed - Every region has their own mini-presidents (e.g. Governor) and enforcemnt of local laws applicable for the region - Central Govt to handle Finances, Foreign Affairs and external defence. Cons - Less wealthy regions will have greater tendencies to breakaway from the federation of states w/c means war [most likely bangsamoro region]. Example is Indonesia [Aceh and Timor] Note that its better to go with Federal State using Parliamentary form of Government [like Malaysia]

instead of Federal Form using Presidential w/ 2 Congress [House and senate] like USA (my own opinion).