By Atty. Ronquillo C. Tolentino
On whatever method the 1987 Constitution may be amended or revised as provided in Sections 1 and 2, Art. XVIII of the said Constitution or whether the revision or amendments shall be ratified or not in a plebiscite, the remaking of the Constitution shall demand from the citizenry awareness, knowledge and discussion. Jorge M. Juco, in his work The Citizen and Constitution emphasizes that the Filipino must inform himself (and others) what the constitution that he is to change already contains. "In order that he may better know what changes he is to institute in the fundamental law, he must know what options confront him, and the consequences of his choice. It, too, demands discussion – this is the keystone of democracy: matters must be discussed openly and open-mindedly. Beyond this, the remaking of our constitution demands reasons. Popular passions and prejudices, while they may away a mob and inspire demonstrations, cannot constitute a stable basis for democratic government. Constitution of countries are not judged by their appeal to the vices of a people, but to their virtues, and to the capacity of the people to look beyond present needs towards the aspirations of the future."
Surfacing as a proposed amendment is a shift to a parliamentary form of government. Whether this shall push through, stalled or derailed by certain legal questions, it is necessary that the advantages and disadvantages be now considered. Fortunately, I had kept some notes during the campaign for the elections to delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
Political education is necessary in a democracy. Political education contributes to the strengthening of democratic process.
Whether charter change shall see the light of the day or shall be consigned to the region of oblivion considering the mounting opposition to it, hereunder are the arguments in favor and arguments contra on the proposal for the abolition of the presidential system of government and the adoption of the parliamentary system:
Arguments in Favor
1. The parliamentary system is characterized by immediate responsibility. Under this arrangement, Congress and the real active executive work together in intimate partnership, immediately sensitive to public opinion. Congress may repudiate the Prime Minister and his government in one day if they should prove themselves unworthy of coincidences; or they may be retained without limit of time by successive Congress renovated at general elections. A harassed administration obstructed by an irreconcilable legislature, or a parliamentary minority confident of winning a majority from the electorate, can take their case to the people without delay and at the proper time, by obtaining a dissolution of Congress and new elections. The President himself may be allowed the power to dissolve in order to bring an unworthy Congress promptly before the bar of the people. [—Recto (4 Historical Bulletin 19-40, March 1960); - Barrera, "A Semi-Parliamentary system – An Alternative?", pp. 6-7].
2. Our political experience since liberation has been marked by many crises which would have been resolved one way or the other, more justly and more expeditiously than they were, if we had been able to exact prompt accountability from the administrations that have been in power. [Recto, supra].
3. Under the parliamentary system, the people can visit swift retribution on official misconduct. At present, our hands are tied until the next election. [Recto, supra].
4. The parliamentary system would insure teamwork and coordination between the legislature and the executive, unlike under the present presidential system where the executive may belong to one party and the legislature controlled by an opposing party, thereby generating utter confusion in national policy. [Sumulong, Speech delivered before the Philippine Lawyers Association on February 8, 1968 at the Winter Garden, Manila Hotel; Manila Chronicle, February 11, 1968, p.8; February, 1968 p. 11; Manglapus, "Is America the Only Voice of Democracy?" Manila Times, December 7-8, 1968].
5. Under the parliamentary system, the government is much more sensitive and responsive to the signs of continued public support because through custom, the Lower House in its support or lack of support normally reflects the state of public opinion. Furthermore, a major change in the platform on which the majority party was elected cannot be carried out without a new mandate through election or a "safe" majority in Lower House. Moreover, although the legislative is elected for a definite maximum period varying from country to country, the representative character of administration is maintained throughout, because loss of popularity of those who run the country involves a change even before the term of office of the Lower House is completed. [Quezon Jr., (Graphic, V. 30, pp. 10-11, May 18 1966)].
6. The present system is extremely rigid. [Briones. "A New Constitution," 3 The Law Review 375].
7. The presidential system is inevitably connected with the spoils system and the tyranny of political parties, and the conviction that the system entails frequent deadlocks and makes difficult and functioning of government. [Sinco, "A Return to Unicameralism," 9-10 Phil. L.J. 240; "The Need for Constitutional Revision,’ The Defender, May 13, 1967].
8. There is the difficulty of electing an independent Chief Executive under the present presidential system, e.g. Osmeña vs. Roxas. [Salvador Araneta, A program of Constitutional Reforms, p.51].
9. It has been said that the greatest virtues of the presidential system is its stability. It is true that stability is generally a virtue but it is the result of continuous victory of the party in power that stability may ripen into dictatorship and that dictatorship may lead to revolution. [Kalaw, The Philippine Social Science Review, July, 1934, VI, pp. 214-247].
10. The very fact that the cabinet system tends to change governments more often that the presidential type should, under the circumstances, win us to its favor. Considering the fact that we have been so accustomed to supporting the party in power in our government, I do not think that we will change to the extent of upsetting the government on slight pretexts. Admitting the fact that all representative democracies on large scale must be governed by parties, I believe that in order to offset the evils that come from our characteristics party system, that form of government which facilitates an easier change of power should be favored.
11. It has been said that we are accustomed more to the presidential rather than to the cabinet system, the contrary seems the more true. We have been more accustomed to the theory of cabinet responsibility, or personal union of legislative and executive functions, than to the other theory, e.g. Spanish governor-general was in a sense the lawgiver for the Philippines, for while laws at that time came from Spain, he was empowered with the advice of the Consejo de Administracion to make the necessary rules and regulations; the government of the Philippine Republic was a cabinet system; the Philippine Commission (1901-1906) was composed in the majority of members holding both executive and legislative positions.
12. Under the presidential system, all departments of the government become partisan in nature from the office of the President down. There are really no non-partisan activities.
Under the cabinet system the titular head, although not a powerful factor in shaping the policies of the government, acts as a check to purely partisan activities and is instrumental in preserving the national unity. [II 428-429 Kalaw, supra.]
Arguments Contra
1. The presidential system is the system we know best. We have operated under it for more than thirty years. [Constitutional Revision project, UP Law Center, First progress Report, p.140]
2. We are emotional people; that trait is not good basis for the parliamentary system, and is the surest indication that government under the system would be characterized by frequent cabinet changes, such as that we witness in France. And then, there is that minor element of amorpropio which is manifested by a tenacious refusal on the part of government officials to leave their posts even if they have no more right to them; with this under a parliamentary system of government, we will have frequent dissolutions of the parliament of law-making body by prime ministers who cannot graciously accept a vote of lack of confidence. [Tolentino, "The Charter and the Citizen," 8 FEU Faculty, First Quarter, 1963-1964].
3. We are not ready for the parliamentary type because we have not devised an effective procedure for the conduct of honest and fraud-free elections without the aid of armed forces and the spirit of sportsmanship has not yet become energized in our elections, therefore, it is risky and dangerous to adopt the parliamentary system, with its frequent change of ministries and holding of elections. Such coming in and going out of governments would upset our political equilibrium and foster chaos and uncertainty in the conduct of public affairs. [Aquino, "Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines," 5 Ateneo Law Journal 332, 1955-1956 (III 141)]. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment