Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change
Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts. Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.
Understanding charter change
We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers, are so against it. The Philippine Star gives this definition of charter change:
Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
Amendments, as explained by constitutional law professor Tony La Viña to Philstar.com, are small changes to the Charter like changing the minimum age of those qualified to run for president from 40 to 25. Revisions are larger changes to the Constitution, like shifting from a presidential form of government to a parliamentary one.
Amendments or revisions to the Constitution may be proposed through a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention.
Congress itself forms a constituent assembly, where lawmakers can propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution which would pass upon a three-fourths vote of all its members. It is not clear, however, if the House of Representatives and the Senate should vote separately or jointly (more on this later).
On the other hand, a constitutional convention is a separate body, composed of elected representatives, created solely to propose amendments or revisions to the Charter.
Congress can call for a constitutional convention upon a two-thirds vote of all its members. A majority in Congress can also call for a referendum on whether a constitutional convention should be convened.
Citizens themselves can propose amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative. For this to happen, there should be a petition by 12% of all registered voters in the country. All legislative districts must be represented in the petition by 3% of all registered voters there.
All proposals to amend or revise the Constitution would be approved or rejected by the people in an election known as a plebiscite.
The Facebook page, Silent No More PH, starts posting some idiotic posts. I heard the person running the page is named Angelo "Cocoy" Dayao. I find the page funny (and irritating) at the same time to praise politicians from parliamentary countries. However, they tend to post anti-charter change posts. A lot of comments tend to say, "We need character change, not charter change." I try to explain it and they keep having their long range of excuses. Even worse, many of those commenting are boomers, people supposedly old enough to be my parents.
A fear mixed with facts and ignorance
Who do you think Duterte’s Prime Minister and successor is likely to be? Most probably Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos. During the vice-presidential debate in April, Bongbong disclosed what Duterte had promised him: “Sinabi ni Mayor Digong, kapag hindi nalutas ang problema ng krimen in three to six months, ibibigay na raw niya ang pagka-Pangulo kay Bongbong. Hindi niya sinabing ibibigay niya kay Senator Alan.”
To translate, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. said during the vice-presidential debate, said, "Mayor Duterte said that if crime and corruption are not solved in three to six months, he'll probably give me the presidency. He (Duterte, emphasis mine) never said he'd give it to Senator Alan."
This was also part of her speech, as if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, is the best in the world:
On the part of Marcos, his 1973 Constitution provided for a Vice-President but this post was only made available during the snap election in 1986. Marcos was allergic to vice-presidents, having quarreled with his vice-president, Fernando Lopez, whom he accused of plotting against him. Sounds familiar?
The 1986 Edsa People Power put an end to Marcos’ semi-presidential-parliamentary set-up and restored the presidential form of government with all its checks and balances.
Duterte has made no bones about his deep dislike for checks and balances. In August last year, Duterte threatened to declare Martial Law if Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno stopped his war on drugs. In the same month, Duterte also threatened to shut down Congress if it bungled his plan to change the Constitution and set up a parliamentary-federal system.
The fruit of the 1986 Edsa people Power is the 1986 Constitution.
Okay, Mrs. Robres admits it was a semi-presidential-parliamentary set-up. I wonder if she will take her claims to real parliamentary countries like Singapore and Malaysia for a start. It's getting old to mention that there was a prime minister named Cesar Virata. It's a shame that Mrs. Robles encountered martial law but never bothered to check things up. We have new information discovered daily, even those from the past. People still need to learn about the atrocities of martial law. However, I'm afraid these aren't talked about in our history textbooks for decades:
- The Filipino First Policy caused the Philippines to fail.
- The Marcos Years were also protectionist-based policies.
The Marcos Years "parliament" was really a sham
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.
Should Filipinos listen to Mrs. Robres because she's their fellow Filipino or should they listen to LKY who did the unthinkable? I'm afraid some people would rather listen to Davide Jr. than the founding dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). There's the usual Ad Homimens and self-contradiction to think about. If they look at how LKY described Virata--it's not that flattering. How can a prime minister of a real parliament be a non-starter and no political leader? That term "first-class administrator" doesn't make one a prime minister. In a parliamentary system, the president is purely symbolic. That's what the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. even cited.
In Los Angeles in 1981, Aquino Jr. practically spilled this out proving the mariteses wrong about the Marcos Years as a parliamentary form of government:
And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary from of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta (puppy) parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a French model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”
Charter change, if done right, can work wonders
Fortunately, Andrew J. Masigan, a blatant supporter of Atty. Maria Leonor S. Gerona-Robredo, a Duterte critic, and economist, actually paints a different picture than Mrs. Robles would about charter change. From Business World, this is what Masigan says about the federal-parliamentary system, a far different portrait than what Mrs. Robles tends to say:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
I respect Masigan and his assessment even if he and I belong to two different spectrums. The problem is, with the current presidential system, it would be very difficult to have more people like him in the Opposition. I could imagine it if we were in a parliamentary system and Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte was the prime minister and the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III was the opposition leader. Madigan would be the shadow government and he might be their shadow minister of economics. Just imagine if Carlos Dominguez were Duterte's economist and he faced off against Masigan on an economic plan. Dominguez presents his plan and Masigan gives his alternatives. Both of them are locked in a productive debate. It would be an interesting debate to think about if the DDS panel and the Dilawan panel were in a formal debate. Sadly, DDS vs. Dilawan "debates" only happen on social media and not in legislative. The trolls (paid or not), from both sides, are too comfortable with their savagery than engaging in a formal debate. Engaging in a formal debate to learn from each other can be challenging. It's easier to throw insults than to engage in intellectual discourse.
With all of that discussed, removing term limits need not be a problem
For the sake of some of the Yellows who so admired Aquino III, some of them wanted him to have a second term. However, the current charter only allows one term per president. The rationale was that limiting a president's term to only one term would prevent another Marcos-style rule. If they say the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was to prevent another Marcos from rising--it failed. Senator Imee R. Marcos and Marcos Jr. both got into legislative positions. Now, Marcos Jr. is the president. Mrs. Robles even has to use Marcos Jr. as a scare mechanic.
I could have a civil discussion with the Yellows, not Yellow fanatics. One reason why I endorse some anti-Duterte people is when they see the problem is the constitution. The late Charles Edward P. Celdran made it no secret that he was a Yellow and anti-Duterte. I feel Celdran died too soon and even went ahead of his late father. Some of the Yellows pointed out that the CCLX and the Second Mactain Airport started during the term of Aquino III. Sure, there's the valid statement that Aquino III would be too dead to sit in parliament. I decided to put in these two scenarios of how a parliamentary system would help:
- If Aquino III were prime minister in his first term and made it to the second term, Aquino III will still have the backing of the Liberal Party. In short, the Dilawan government has its unified policy. Even if Aquino III resigns out of health issues or dies in office in his second term as prime minister--the Liberal Party continues his work. The work may be continued by fellow ministers either by Manuel A. Roxas II (his deputy prime minister) or Mrs. Robredo as possible replacements should he either resign or die in office. Roxas II and Mrs. Robredo can take over from where Aquino III left off.
- In the case that the Liberal Party loses but gets enough votes, the Liberal Party will become the Opposition. I gave the example of Duterte as prime minister and Aquino III as opposition leader. Aquino III's criticisms of Duterte will be face-to-face and party-to-party. For example, Aquino III can raise it up in Parliament that Duterte et al should complete the projects the Liberal Party started, as the responsibility for those projects falls under the incumbent government.
If Mrs. Robles were diligent enough to do research--she should figure out that it's not easy to become a prime minister in Singapore. She should've noted this one and I doubt that Marcos Jr. would've been selected as prime minister in a real parliament and why it might make Mrs. Robredo (a lawyer) preferable in the long run:
Weeks before an election, selected candidates are ‘parachuted’ to various constituencies to shadow their MP-mentors. The candidates are also sent for courses on public speaking and communication skills to handle the media and questions thrown at them during the election. If the ministerial candidate wins their contest, they are then carefully watched to see how they discharge their duties. If they continue to perform well, they will be promoted to a junior minister after a term, then a full minister.At the same time, fellow party members carefully watch the new ministers to see if they are suitable for the PAP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). To make it into the CEC, the party’s highest ruling committee and its “inner circle”, candidates have to impress party members called cadres. Unlike other countries, where all members can vote on matters of party leadership, in Singapore, most political parties have adopted the cadre system, where long serving grassroots leaders and members are chosen by the CEC to vote for the new CEC. This “closed system” has been compared to the process of electing a new pope, in which “the cardinals appoint the pope and the pope appoints the cardinals”. In other words, since the cadres are selected by the ruling elite, they are unlikely to radically dissent against them. It also means that ministers who aspire for the top job need to get in the good books of the current party elite.In an interview with ChannelNewsAsia, PAP cadres (whose identities are a secret) talked about what they looked for in CEC candidates. These individuals must have leadership traits, be people oriented, and most importantly have empathy. One cadre, who leads the youth wing in an eastern PAP branch said that candidates’’ performance in their constituencies are equally important. . “If the individual cannot connect with his or her constituents, then there is no point to even be in the CEC,” he added.
If Marcos Jr. fails to carry those tasks out, he can't be selected as the prime minister. Maybe, the chances that Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada would've been the prime minister, would be rather low. Even if someone like Estrada became prime minister, can he last long? It would be rather embarrassing to fail to uphold the confidence of the parliament. For example, Estrada faces off against Jose De Venecia as the opposition leader. De Venecia is a very smart man. De Venecia starts firing difficult questions at Estrada. Estrada starts answering nonsense. De Venecia would call for a vote of no confidence, which in turn, another EDSA revolution would not be necessary. There were no such characteristics during the Marcos Regime! Marcos Sr. ruled unopposed in contrast to real prime ministers.
I believe it's because having a charter change is a huge threat to the comfort zone of Filipinos who oppose it
They keep bringing up the Marcos narrative to avoid it. It's like talking about a botched vaccination incident to go against vaccination in general. Anti-vaxxers would only cite the botched vaccination incidents instead of talking about empirical data on how vaccination actually helped stop many pandemics. Another empirical data today is how vaccination helped make COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic. I wouldn't be surprised that if I do live long to grow old, I might end up getting a stroke arguing with youngsters who'll believe the lie that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by the COVID-19 vaccine! The issue with Marcos Sr.'s charter change wasn't charter change--it was how it was implemented. The constitution needed an upgrade but the whole process got screwed up pretty bad.
I guess too many people prefer the flashy elections. They're probably still too addicted to personality politics. During the term of Duterte, many people still rabidly defended Aquino III like he was the best president in the galaxy like he was perfect, and the opposing party fired similar shots too. Some people glorified Mrs. Robredo and Marcos Jr. on social media. I assume they'd rather be entertained by presidential campaign theatrics instead of platform-based politics. The worst part is when they complain about why people don't vote wisely. If the election campaigns are comparable to a circus--people will vote for the clown that amused them the most. Yet, these idiots still think that a vote wisely campaign is better than charter change. I must admit I really laughed when Atty. Robredo walked with a crown and Marcos Jr. promised PHP 20.00 for every kilo of rice. I guess Marcos Jr. won against Atty. Robredo because the latter didn't make a promise too good to be true.
Change is always a threat to the comfort zone. Too many people would prefer to be in their comfort zone in the name of pleasure. That's why I feel the tagline "It's More Fun in the Philippines" can be so misused and abused. In my case, I prefer to remove "more" and say "It's Fun in the Philippines" instead. I guess so many Filipinos are still accustomed to the bad habit of sugarcoating bitter situations. In Bisaya, there's the saying, "Kung pait, butangi lang ug asukal, ng matam-is na imong kinabuhi." In English, it means, "If your life is bitter, just add sugar so it will be sweet." Unfortunately, that kind of mentality only leads to more bitterness. An overdose of sugar can lead to several health problems, one way or another such as obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, or even worse cancer as a result of too much sugar.
If you want improvement, changes are needed. If you want to lose weight--you need to start doing heart-raising exercises like cardio or lifting weights to lose weight. If you want to be healthier--you need to ditch all the delicious junk in exchange for healthy food. If you want to cook delicious healthy food--you need to learn new methods of delicious healthy cooking. If you want a better productive workforce--you may need to change the system and the equipment. Change is always necessary. Change can be good. That's if done right and for the right reasons.
Comments
Post a Comment