Are Filipinos ready for Charter Change?
and an undisciplined party system on top of the
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 think-
thank 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
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 program-
oriented 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-of-
the-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.
He, however, said Mrs. Arroyo can "persuade" the
people if she continues to provide basic services to
them.
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.
"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.
And having a vice president popular to the masses
by her side could also do the trick.
"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.
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 Visayas-
Palawan, East Visayas, North and West Mindanao,
Bangsamoro and Central and South Mindanao.
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.
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.
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."
This will ensure the states’ or regional governments’
autonomy, powers, functions and resources vis-à-vis
the federal government, it said.
"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."
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 instead of Federal Form using Presidential w/ 2
obligations" of Filipino citizens. "This will be Congress [House and senate] like USA (my own
accompanied by a reform in the electoral system," opinion).
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]