Quezon's Column

The Long View : First order of business

Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service

THE PRESIDENT'S decision to submit to her party's desire for Charter change ignores one central question: Should the President preside over the undertaking and related efforts? Unless and until the issue on Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's continued fitness for office is resolved, constitutional changes are inevitably, and dangerously, tied to her political fate. Since public opinion has overwhelmingly spoken in favor of the impeachment process, then let that issue be resolved through the impeachment process, before Congress turns itself into a constituent assembly.

To do otherwise-to insist on an accelerated process in which Congress defines the changes to be made, without consulting the public-is to prevent a national consensus from emerging. Without a national consensus, Congress faces a danger. That danger is not in the rejection of Charter changes in a referendum. (After all, one thing is certain: the amendments that Congress will come up with will have to be ratified in a plebiscite, in which public participation has been historically low, and in which the machinery of the ruling party has a tremendous advantage in getting out a "yes" vote.) The danger lies in a widespread public disappointment and suspicion that might greet whatever constitutional order emerges.

However, if the question of the President's fitness for office is resolved; if an advisory commission is put together and consults all sectors and regions; and if, by virtue of the consultations, a reasonable draft of potentially desirable amendments is submitted to Congress, then constitutional reform through a constituent assembly would not only be acceptable, but even desirable.

This scenario, I suppose, is what appeals to Prof. Jose Abueva, who has recently been criticized for going along with the President's proposals. Abueva has been a consistent and eloquent proponent of federalism, although the kind he proposes seems rather different from the kind members of Congress want. Nevertheless, Abueva's heading the consultative commission provides Congress a chance to show it is willing to hear the voice of the people.

In the meantime, Congress can focus on the budget, even as the House wrestles with the impeachment complaint in its justice committee. It is hoped that the matter would be resolved in a manner that inspires confidence-without the House deliberations or a Senate trial triggering a furious backlash from the public (in which case we'd be headed toward a revolutionary government, anyway). All the while, a constitutional consultative commission would have time for study, reflection and consultation. It should not be that only the provinces are heard (and not just the wealthy and well-positioned provinces favoring a federal setup). Other sectors must also be heard. As it stands, congressionally centered proposals do not take into consideration the views of the marginalized sectors, which should have a chance to participate in the debate.

What separates the proponents of Charter change within the government (representatives, governors and mayors) from those outside government is actually an idea often used by former President Ramos: the idea of "leveling the playing field." As proposed by the Speaker and accepted by the President, and loudly applauded by the Lakas-CMD, Charter change seems to be more of a means to establish a government by Lakas, of Lakas and for Lakas, than a way to broaden public participation and ensure greater opportunities for all, and not just a few. I do not believe there is already a public consensus on the particulars: for example, what kind of federalism should be instituted; is unicameralism the only way to go; or will a parliamentary government provide for proportional representation, or a winner-take-all system similar to the absolutely safe, and even for sale, boroughs of England during much of the 18th and 19th centuries?

So it all begins and ends, whether we like it or not, with the President. For those of us who feel she should resign, she has replied: "Impeach me." Most people seem inclined to call her bluff. So let her be impeached. And let it be done in a manner that will lead the public, on either side of the political divide, to accept willingly the results of the impeachment process. Rigoberto Tiglao recently challenged Rep. Francis Escudero to categorically state whether or not the opposition would abide by the result of the impeachment process. I'd argue that the decision lies not with either the administration or the opposition, but rather, with the public. The majority has as much responsibility as the opposition to ensure that the process ultimately ends up with a verdict acceptable to the public. The public knows fair play when it sees it. The public will know if the impeachment process has resulted, anywhere down the line, in something that makes sense or not.

Then, and only then, with the question of the President's fitness resolved, and the reputation of Congress improved because of its handling of the impeachment process, should we turn to the question of fixing the constitutional defects the President, former President Ramos and Speaker De Venecia claim are to blame for the country's woes.

* * *

On Aug. 4, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, UP-ISP will be holding at the UP College of Law an iBlog Mini Summit titled: "Blogging Gloriagate." This is part of iBlog's discussion series, which intends to document the impact of blogging in Philippine society. Talks will be on: "Introducing Blogging Gloriagate" (Atty. JJ Disini)-10-10:30; "Blogging Gloriagate: The PCIJ Experience"-10:30-11; "Blogging Gloriagate: A Personal Journey" (Manuel L. Quezon III). It's free. Join us.