i Report Issue No. 3 2005 - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

legislators have given themselves privileges—for travel, district expenses, and other perks—that they would have never allowed in other agencies of government. STATE OF THE NATION. Opposition congressmen (above) filed an impeachment complaint against Arroyo, as crowds, including children, massed up outside the House. THE STRUGGLE FOR SPOILS Most spectacularly of all, Congress has failed in its primordial duty to advance the national interest, which is often sacrificed for the narrow, short-term interests of legislators. The organizing principle of Congress is the struggle for spoils. Legislators have used their powers to make laws, to conduct inquiries, to examine the national budget, and to vet presidential appointments to get benefits for themselves, their allies, and their kin. Spending on pork barrel has increased dramatically through the years, declining only last year and only because of severe budgetary constraints and a Senate that was eager to embarrass the House. There is also more than ample evidence to show that the business and proprietary interests of lawmakers and their families and friends have benefited greatly from preferential legislation, tax exemptions, and less-than-partial government regulation. In short, the majority of legislators in the last two decades have behaved like trapos, political mercenaries concerned mainly with delivering patronage to their districts, ensuring their families remain in power, and getting as much benefit as they can from their seat in Congress. Like the presidency, Congress has been hounded by scandal. A few random examples should suffice: in 1993, House Speaker de Venecia convinced a number of representatives to vote against a bill that would put a ceiling on foreign-debt payments by promising to release P200 million of their pork barrel. In 2000, partylist representatives exposed how congressmen were being offered P500,000 each by House leaders to vote for the controversial Electric Power Industry Reform Act or Epira. In 2003, National Electrification Administration chief Manuel Sanchez also confirmed that he had authorized the release of P2.5 million each to 150 congressmen who had voted for that law. The recent reports on how some congressmen have each been offered P500,000 not to sign the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo only reinforce the people’s worst suspicions about Congress. Even the opposition is tainted, if only because not too long ago the shoe was on the other foot. Four years ago, when Estrada was on the verge of impeachment, the likes of Ronaldo Zamora, Rolex Suplico, Imee Marcos, and Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero, now at the forefront of the anti- Arroyo opposition in the House, were on the side of the disgraced president. Can Filipinos, therefore, be blamed if they think the game of presidential impeachment is much like musical chairs? And given this, should it be any wonder that the president, in order to survive, has struck a Faustian bargain with the most trapo elements in Congress, promising them the parliament of their dreams, one that will finally enable one of them to be the head of government? Having been deserted by the reformist, civil-society elements of her government after the resignation of the Hyatt 10, the president now seeks, through the promise of charter change, to consolidate her remaining constituency: the patronage-and spoils-oriented local officials and members of Congress. Now that it is her presidency that is at stake, Gloria Arroyo is mobilizing not people power as she did in 2001, but trapo power. THE GRAVEST DANGER In a speech broadcast in the evening of July 7, when she announced that she was asking all her Cabinet secretaries to resign, the president said, “Over the years, our political system has degenerated to such an extent that it’s very difficult to live within the system with hands totally untainted.” It is a theme she would repeat in subsequent speeches, most famously in her July 25 State of the Nation Address. The message is clear: the problem is not me, it is the system. Many Filipinos will agree that the country’s political system is as tainted as the president has painted it. This is why, as the article in this issue, “So Young and So Trapo,” shows, even young people who are elected to the Sangguniang Kabataan end up being sucked into corruption and wheelingdealing. But Mrs. Arroyo is also being disingenuous. By scapegoating the system, she hopes to evade her own culpability. For many on both sides of the political spectrum, the problem is not just the system, but the people the president says should be entrusted to reform it. They object to convening Congress as a constituent assembly. To them, it is like giving the most retrograde elements of the Philippine polity the power to craft a new constitution that would only buttress their powers and further entrench patronage politics. Or, to put it somewhat differently, it’s like letting serial killers draft the Penal Code. It is interesting that the critics of cha-cha from both the Left and the Right are one in sensing this danger. “The biggest flaw” in the charter change proposals, writes conservative columnist Antonio Abaya of The Manila Standard, “is the fact that the constitutional amendments will be drafted by a constituent assembly made up of trapos and political dynasts who now control the present Congress and who will do everything to retain their positions, power and privileges in the new Parliament.” On the opposite end of the political spectrum, Satur Ocampo, representative of the leftist Bayan Muna party-list group says cha-cha “will not solve but even make matters even worse as they only promote cosmetic change, keep the status quo, and offer no new solutions… At the core of these proposals is the undemocratic idea of keeping Filipinos farthest away from instituting political, electoral, economic, and social reforms.” In 1986, the 48-member commission that drafted a new constitution was made up of representatives of the Edsa constituency. They were lawyers, scholars, NGO activists, street parliamentarians, a priest and a nun, anti-Marcos politicians, even those from the radical Left. These were, broadly speaking, the reformist elements of Philippine society that were mobilized in the struggle against dictatorship. The constitution they drafted may be flawed but it had strong provisions for human rights and civil liberties. It made the president still powerful, but less powerful than it previously was, with presidential arbitrariness held in check by a powerful judiciary, an even more powerful legislature, and independent commissions and offices like that of the Ombudsman. Moreover, that constitution had provisions designed to allow broader representation, especially in Congress, through the election of party-list representatives, the imposition of term limits on all elected officials, and a curb on political dynasties. The truth is that Congress has been notoriously slow in enacting the laws that would breathe life into these provisions. It took years to pass the party-list law, and a ban on political dynasties has yet to be legislated. If Congress is left alone to think about charter change, 22 PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM I REPORT
C H A R T E R C H A N G E chances are our lawmakers will write a more regressive constitution than the one we already have. How can a body that has benefited so much from the system be expected to reform it? The legislature has not even passed long-standing proposals for political and electoral reforms that would, among others, place a ban on party switching, provide subsidies for political parties, and regulate campaign finance. QUICK FIXES The real impetus for the drive to change to a parliamentary system is that the trapos are threatened by the rise of media and movie celebrities and their possible dominance of the commanding heights of political power in the Philippines—the Senate and the presidency. The quick fix they propose to this is quite simple: establish a unicameral legislature (thereby doing away with the Senate) and changing to a parliamentary system (thereby eliminating a president elected by popular vote). But the problem with beginning what Arroyo calls “the great debate on charter change” is that it could also open the floodgates for real reforms that would threaten trapo power. And so when the president said she preferred cha-cha through con-ass (constituent assembly), de Venecia was clapping wildly. It meant a process that could be contained, as the speaker and his allies had contained similar processes in the past, within the halls of the legislature. The parliamentary system as envisioned in House Concurrent Resolution 004 passed earlier this year will pave the way for trapo consolidation of political power vis-à-vis celebrities and the middle-class, modernizing, and reformist elements that have managed to crash into the halls of power since 1986. This proposal does away with party-list, sectoral, or proportional representation. Term limits are similarly removed, while each term of elected officials will be four years instead of the current three. All members of a unicameral parliament will be elected at the district level, meaning that the power base of political families, which lies in single-member legislative districts, will remain unchallenged. In the face of resistance to the idea of constitutional reforms, the president subsequently said she would also form a citizen’s commission on charter change. This, as well as pressure from the outside, could force Congress to make more progressive constitutional changes. After all, the proposals for constitutional reform of the likes of scholar Jose V. Abueva advocate more far-reaching changes that lie beyond the imaginings of de Venecia and his allies. (See table showing a comparison of various proposals for constitutional change.) The citizen’s commission, however, is largely intended to generate popular backing for the notion of charter change. As the May 2005 survey of the Social Weather Stations indicated, only about a third of Filipinos were open to the idea of cha-cha. Such indifference is also the reason why the president has endorsed a federal form of government, which has wider support from various sectors around the country. (See “Voices from the Periphery.”) In comparison, the proposed shift to a parliamentary system has been met with far more skepticism and suspicion. THE GREAT DEBATE But all this is speculative. The main obstacle that faces cha-cha now is the Senate. Unless the Senate agrees to a con-ass, it will never happen. So far, it doesn’t seem likely that the Senate is willing to dance to the cha-cha beat. The reason is plain to see: many senators have presidential ambitions and are not about to abandon these, or for that matter, their powers and privileges as members of the “Upper House.” Moreover, many of them are looking forward to the impeachment, if only because it will provide the senators more television time than a dozen high-profile “investigations in aid of legislation.” They would thus likely prefer to go through the impeachment trial first, before even discussing cha-cha. Despite this, the charterchange proponents remain hopeful. Ramos, for example, has proposed a fast track to cha-cha that would allow a referendum on the constitution in early 2006. The House timetable proposed by the likes of Rep. Constantino Jaraula sees a referendum taking place the second quarter of next year. Both, however, see a new parliament in place by 2007. This is also the graceful exit option for the president: she bows out of office and is home free of the charges she now faces. But this formula will work only if the president is genuinely willing to cut short her term and to push for charter change as a real option, rather than as a diversion from impeachment. If cha-cha is the delaying tactic Arroyo critics say it is, then the president could just be stringing Ramos and de Venecia along. Joel Rocamora of the Institute for Popular Democracy points out that the president knows very well that by next year, legislators would be too consumed by preparations for the 2007 elections for them to pay too much attention to constitutional changes. If cha-cha is delayed beyond 2007 and she is not impeached, then Gloria Arroyo remains president until 2010, he says. This is precisely the kind of brinksmanship game that Arroyo likes to play, say those who know her well. Some cautionary notes as the great debate begins: in a country with a sophisticated and resilient political elite, institutional change or shifts in the form of government may not change very much. Our elites have shown great capacity for reinventing themselves. They adapt easily to new political circumstances and have mastered how to talk the talk of reform, without actually walking the walk. The flaws of our political system, therefore, can be remedied not merely through a change in institutions; reforms should include measures that would open the way for major changes in the kinds of people elected to public office. If the same families dominate political power, then nothing changes very much. If the trapo political culture of patronage and spoils remains ascendant, then it will be more of the same. The cha-cha rescue remedy could end up a mere placebo that provides temporary relief but not a lasting cure. PROPOSALS FOR CHARTER CHANGE Proposal of Jose V. Abueva* Bicameral Parliament, with Upper House composed of representatives chosen from states assemblies 80% of about 300 Lower House seats elected by single-member districts; 20% by proportional representation Prime minister as head of government, elected by Parliament; forms Cabinet, mostly from members of Parliament President as symbolic head of state, elected by Parliament from among its members Federal government to be installed 5-10 years, with 11 states. Federal government to have powers over defense, foreign relations, currency & monetary policy, human rights and Supreme Court & Court of Appeals. All other powers, including taxation, to be devolved to states. House Proposal** Unicameral Parliament called the National Assembly All seats to be elected by single-member districts, assembly members to serve 4-year terms, no term limits Prime Minister as head of government, elected by Parliament; forms Cabinet, majority of which should be from Parliament President as symbolic head of state, elected by Parliament from among its members Federal government to be installed in 10 years, with the National assembly to decide how many independent states there would be, and their powers Coalition for Charter Change Now*** Unicameral Parliament 300 seats in Parliament, 240 for district representatives, 60 for partylist representatives serving 5-year terms. No party-switching 1 year before election. Only those who are members of a political party for at least 1 year are qualified to run. Prime Minister as head of government, elected by Parliament; forms Cabinet, majority of which should be from Parliament President as symbolic head of state, elected by direct vote for a 5-year term Federal Parliament to enact a law 1 year after new constitution, to create 11 states, most of which will be established within 5-6 years. Federal government to have powers over defense, foreign affairs, currency, foreign trade, public debt, transport & communications. All other powers, including taxation, given to states. *Abueva is on the board of the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines and has been named member of a citizen’s commission on constitutional reforms that will be convened by the government. ** The House proposal is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 004 filed earlier this year. According to Rep. Constantino Jaraula, this resolution will be the basis of discussions to be undertaken by Congress once it is convened as a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. *** The Coalition is nongovernment, but its members are closely associated with House Speaker Jose de Venecia. PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM I REPORT 23
Page 1: i REPORT July-September 2005 P75 Ph
Page 4 and 5: SHEILA S. CORONEL NO TWO presidents
Page 6 and 7: Tobacco, the country’s biggest ci
Page 8 and 9: THE TWO FACES OF GMA. Aides say tha
Page 10 and 11: likewise rebutted Zuce’s charges.
Page 12: T H E C A M P A I G N Presidential
Page 15 and 16: C A M P A I G N F U N D S Buying vo
Page 17 and 18: C A M P A I G N F U N D S On March
Page 19 and 20: T H E V I C E P R E S I D E N T WHO
Page 22 and 23: HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN? In 1998,
Page 26 and 27: LIGHTS, CAMERA, IMPEACHMENT! ALECKS
Page 28 and 29: For Visayans, the center does not h
Page 30 and 31: The Moro people can be part of a pl
Page 32 and 33: TWO AT EDSA ‘When the wheels of h
Page 34 and 35: FOCUS ON FILIPINO YOUTH DEFYING THE
Page 36: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N d
Page 39 and 40: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N K
Page 41 and 42: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N s
Page 43 and 44: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N d
Page 45 and 46: Stay, serve poor first, Stay, serve
Page 47 and 48: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N l
Page 49 and 50: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N W
Page 51 and 52: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N m
Page 53 and 54: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N a
Page 55 and 56: le Up le lim CHANGING FACE. Muslim
Page 58 and 59: FOCUS ON FILIPINO YOUTH ALECKS P. P
Page 60: T H E L O S T G E N E R A T I O N a
Page 64: GRASSROOTS GAME Jueteng has deep ro

i Report Issue No. 3 2005 - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?