Philippine Constitutional Change: The way out?

This year opened with debates on how to change the Constitution - as President Arroyo
deftly warded off calls for her resignation by putting the spotlight on political reforms.
During the height of the political crisis in July 2005, Arroyo called for ‘the opening of the
great debate on Charter Change’ as the solution to the political gridlock besetting the
Philippine political system. Congressmen and local government officials heartily
supported the call for a move towards a unicameral parliamentary government to replace
the current presidential system. The Senators, meanwhile, were vehement in their
opposition to the proposal, which would entail abolishing the Senate.

Changing the Charter has been a long-running debate in post-1986 Philippines, with all
Presidents since Fidel Ramos making it part of their policy agenda to amend the
Constitution. The 1987 Constitution provides three modes of changing the Charter: first,
through a Constitutional Convention that is popularly elected; second, through a
Constituent Assembly composed of both Houses of Congress; and third, via a ‘People’s
Initiative’, which requires the support of 12 per cent of registered voters in the country
and at least 3 per cent of the voters in each district. The current attempt to change the
form of government is perhaps the most momentous, packaged as a means to remedy thecrisis-prone political system.

Regime opponents interpreted the sudden attention given to constitutional change in the
midst of the President’s crisis of legitimacy as a bid for a ‘graceful exit’ rather than as a
fundamental constitutional reform. President Arroyo’s detractors, some of whom have
been steadfast supporters of amending the Constitution, dismissed the move as
diversionary.On 16 December, the 55-man Consultative Commission (ConCom) created by the
President, submitted its proposals for revising the 1987 Constitution. The report
recommended the following:
· shift to a unicameral parliamentary system and eventually towards a federal
government system,
· removal of economic restrictions on foreign investors,
· electoral reforms,
· political party reforms, and
· judicial reforms.

Thus, the magic elixir is to rewrite the constitution and switch from a presidential system to a parliamentary system. Proponents of this move claim that under a parliamentary system, politics in the Philippines will become more professional. There will be less chance of a celebrity being elected to the highest office. It will also put an end to the gridlock that now often exists between the different branches of government. In all, they claim, the mere change to a parliamentary system is the miracle solution to all that ails the Philippines. Those pushing changes to the country's constitution belong to one of two schools of thought. One wants to make the changes through a constitutional convention. This means the electorate would elect delegates from throughout the country who would then meet to thrash out the issues. A majority of 23 senators, as well as President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, have indicated they prefer this method.

Their plan is to select the delegates simultaneously with the national elections of 2004. The problems with this method are myriad. Many fear that selecting the delegates during national elections will only politicize the process, something nearly everyone in this over politicized country wants to avoid. Another worry is the cost, as holding a constitutional convention is expected to cost close to US$100 million, money the cash-strapped government simply doesn't have. And yet another complaint with this method is that the changes made would only take hold in 2010, and that the Philippines simply cannot wait that long for change. The other school wants to effect change through a constituent assembly. This is a much simpler and faster method as it entails the present members of Congress - 23 senators and 220 members of the

House of Representatives - convening to make the changes to the constitution. The House itself wants this method and has already started deliberations on a resolution authorizing congress to transform itself into an assembly in order to change the constitution. The problems with

Congress doing the job are also numerous. The Philippine public simply doesn't trust its own politicians. They fear that the members of Congress want to switch to a parliamentary system as soon as possible in order to cancel the 2004 elections and perpetuate themselves in power for several more years. The prospect of no elections has others imagining even more sinister maneuverings. Arroyo has claimed she is not going to run for president in 2004. If there is a change to parliamentary system she won't have to and could still keep the job. Even though she has said she prefers constitutional change via the election of convention delegates, the speaker of the House is a member of the party which she heads. He happens to be the main proponent of the move to a parliamentary system and to make those changes quickly through a constituent assembly. The entire issue is becoming divisive because motives and methods are readily and justifiably questioned. A political advisor to Arroyo made the claim that the country needs the parliamentary system in order to institutionalize the two People Power uprisings. "If we no longer have confidence in our national leader and his government," he said recently, "we don't need to go out in the streets again because a parliamentary system will provide the institution to change governments." Some have found that statement rather ironic. The same people that gained power by taking their gripes in to the streets and encouraging what some feel was nothing more than a coup against a legitimately elected leader, now want to perpetuate themselves in power and stop that from happening again.

Columnist Neil Cruz, writing in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, claims that a parliamentary system, even with proper political parties, would actually be worse for the Philippines. "Under this system," he wrote, "any pipsqueak congressman who would be the counterpart of members of parliament can become prime minister, the head of government, if he has enough money to buy the votes of his fellow MPs. The position of the top executive of the nation will be for sale.

What should be even more of a wake-up call to the politicians pushing for changes to the charter are two recent surveys indicating that a good majority of Filipinos are against tampering with the constitution at this time, especially if it is done by the current members of Congress. The public's attitude is best summed up by Senator Serge Osmena III, who recently wondered aloud what many had already been thinking - the miracle Filipinos have been waiting for is not a change in the constitution, but a change in the behavior of the people who run the country, no matter the form of government as mandated by the constitution.

"The system of government is not important," Osmena said. "There will be parliamentary crooks or federal crooks as there are now presidential crooks. The important thing is the people, not the system. If we put the same crooks in government, whether it is parliamentary, federal or presidential, we would still have the same rotten government."