A Short Lesson in Political Science 4: Here They Come Conning Us Again

Is our Constitution so flawed and sick that it needs urgent surgical operations?

The rah-rah boys of President Arroyo in Congress believe so or are made to believe that it is, such that they want to overhaul it before the 2010 national elections. The motion to do it picks up tempo with the passage of H.R. Resolution1109.

One of the eyesores of the fundamental law of the land that the advocates of amendments or revision want to remove is its patriotic provisions that prohibit foreign ownership of our national patrimony, especially land. The restrictive provisions are perceived to discourage foreign investments that have resulted to our economic doldrums. The wagtails of Malacanang want to open our land and our national resources for exploitation to those who have the dough wherever they may come from. Doing this would lead, accordingly, to the economic prosperity of the country.

This thinking is politically naïve. First, many of our lands, many of our national resources are, for all intent and purposes, already in the hands of foreign nationals. You go to the famous tourist destinations in this country, such as Boracay and Panglao, and the locals will tell you that the prime lots there are already owned by the Swiss, Belgians, Germans, Americans, Koreans, Japanese, and many other more. The strategy is to marry locals or hire dummy partners and, presto, these aliens may now do business in our blighted shores. Foreign investors are not interested in owning lands, the nitwits in the Lower House should know, but in using them to serve their business interests. Land titles remain in the names of their Filipino mistresses, second or third wives, or gambling and drinking buddies but the profits derived from their economic activities remain intact in foreign hands. Train your sight to plantation farming, mining, fishing, and other resource extractive or ecologically destructive enterprises and you will know that the scenario, the plots of their stories are similar, if not exactly the same. Indeed, if there is one need to amend our Constitution it is to provide provisions to stop the aliens from hoodwinking us.

The other primary argument for Charter change is the perception that our structure of government does not usher sustainable national development. Our presidential form of government, with its bicameral legislative body, is not, accordingly, politically efficient and effective and economically responsive. The executive and the legislative department may compete and not cooperate and unite for holistic governance but would rather engage in a political war of attrition, especially if the occupants are of different political colors. The Senate and the House of Representatives often clash on many agenda, economic and otherwise, that would only derail important legislative interventions to improve the quality of life of our people. The members from the two houses compete, rather than cooperate, develop and protect their own turfs, rather than spread development, are obsessed with investigation of scandals of all kinds, from mundane sexual exploits of certain psychotics to corruption in high levels, accordingly in aid of legislation, but had not been heard of actually coming up with legislative remedies for all the mess they had poked their noses into. It is contended that to become more efficient and effective and to stop or curb corruption to the minimum the solution is to change the structure from presidential to parliamentary form of government.

The perceived solution is wishful thinking. Theoretically, a parliamentary form of government appears in general to be efficient and effective in governance. The executive and the legislative bodies blend and become one integrated working machine. The parliament elects the head of state, the prime minister, from among the members themselves, and also appoints heads of ministries (departments) from the same membership to implement legislations or programs of government. This avoids the proverbial delays in legislation and execution of government laws and programs which seems to characterize the presidential form of government. Great, but this is only true if the members of government are dominated by a single party. But if the parliament is multi-party in composition, then it is all hell for everyone. There would be stalemates and paralyses in the operations of government as interests and directions of governance differ and clash. There would be constant abolition of government (ministries, including that of the prime minister’s, or the entire parliament itself at times) for lost of confidence, operational paralysis, and for other reasons.

How is corruption reduced or eliminated in a parliamentary form of government? Corruption is not spawned or stopped by the structure of government but by the people who run it. In fact, a parliamentary form of government run by a single party with members of corrupt tendencies may yet become an apparatus of grand scale corruption as they can easily connive, agree and unite to pursue their selfish interest.

The government is only as honest and as good as the people who run it. If this is so why the rush to change the constitution through a constituent assembly (con-ass) before the 2010 national elections?

The only possible political answer, claimed by critics and even by some followers of the tenant in Malacanang, is to really install a parliamentary government to extend GMA’s stay in power till kingdom comes. Once a parliament is in place, Arroyo Almighty may run for a seat in Pampanga, win it by all means as in the hello-garci 2004 elections, and become prime minister through the tyranny of number of her pork-hungry lapdogs. Thus, it is happy time forever more for her and her ilk.

Will the Supreme Court allow the actual conduct of the con-ass without the participation of the Senate?

The ambiguous provision of Article XVII, Section I (1) of the constitution is the bone of contention here. It says “Any amendment to, or revision of, this constitution may be proposed by: the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.” The ambiguity lies on a missing clause (one obvious lapse of the framers of the 1987 constitution that really needs amendment!), that is either “voting jointly” or “voting separately” which should have been added to the end of said provision.

Gloria’s bright boys assert an interpretation that it is voting jointly (thus HR 1109). The Senate, which will definitely be outnumbered if this view prevails, counters it is voting separately in the tradition of making separate action on major legislations, a procedure that is inherent in a bicameral congress. Otherwise, the latter will accordingly boycott the con-ass.

A petition to nullify HR 1109 was filed with the Supreme Court. But the High Court dismissed it as “premature and lacked justiciable issue.” The Court contends that the House of Representatives has not yet performed an act (such as the actual convening of Congress into a constituent assembly) or done something that would warrant its intervention.

The sordid drama continues while the people are getting sick and numbed by the political maneuvers, manipulations and deceits.