Reason & Concern

CHA – CHA Again?
By Atty. Ronquillo C. Tolentino

Notwithstanding the earlier declaration of Speaker Jose de Venecia calling for a year long moratorium on Charter change, it seems that the House of Representatives is moving for its resurrection. What with the reported House Bills No. 1752, No. 1876, No. 2479 apart from a resolution and study on the proposed amendments to the political provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the proposed changes in the Socio Economic provisions. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said that charter change is not in the 2008 budget, though.
On whatever method the 1987 Constitution may be amended or revised as provided in Sections 1 and 2, Art. VII 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, et al. 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 sway 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 the present needs towards the aspiration of the future.”
It would not be farfetched that a proposed amendment would be 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 and it contributes to the strengthening of democratic process.
Whether the surfacing drive for charter change shall see the light of the day or shall be consigned to the region of oblivion considering the 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, albeit some of the arguments for and against may already be passé:
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 confidences; 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 Bulliten 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 in 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. To be continued next issue.