Parliamentary Cha-Cha

Advertisement

HOW will the proposed Philippine charter change calling for a shift from the current presidential-bicameral to a parliamentary-unicameral system affect the hard-fought right of suffrage that overseas Filipinos now have?

This is just one of the questions being raised by overseas Filipinos who are learning that charter change or "Cha Cha" is now the hottest topic of discussion in the Philippines.

The latest poll from the Philippines taken by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) shows a dramatic increase in the number of Filipinos now favoring a parliamentary system -- 54% -- up almost 15 points in just two months.

But there's a catch. The majority would support it if President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) were to step down in 2007 as former President Fidel V. Ramos has proposed.

While the focus of the people's anger or disappointment is with the current president, it is the emerging consensus that the Philippine presidential-bicameral system just hasn't worked for the Philippines because too much power is concentrated in the office of the president, regardless of who is elected president.

An example of presidential corruption was revealed to me by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Chief Reynaldo Wycoco, a week before he suffered a stroke, when he told me about the "4-3-2-1" system that he said was widely practiced during the administration of President Joseph "Erap"Estrada before Wycoco became NBI director.

"It was common knowledge in the NBI that certain government contracts were subject to the 4-3-2-1 system," he said. "This meant that 40% would go to Erap, 30% to the Erap mistress backing the contract, 20% to all the other government officials whose signatures on the contract were needed, and 10% to the initiator of the contract."

A 100-million-peso contract to supply uniforms and equipment to a military unit like the Coast Guard, for example, would easily turn into a 200-million-peso contract after going through this system.

There are just too many contracts that need the approval of the president and the temptations are too great for any president to resist.

An honest man or woman could not be elected president because he or she could not afford it. Philippine elections have become too expensive. On the average, columnist Jarius Bondoc estimates, it now costs about 2 billion pesos ($40M) to run for president, 800 million pesos ($16M) for senator, 250 million pesos ($5M) for congressman, governor or big city mayor, 50 million pesos ($1M) for town mayor, and 20 million pesos ($.4M) for a board member or councilor. All these election costs for posts with monthly salaries ranging from 15,000 ($300) to 32,000 pesos ($600).

And then there's the problem of counting the ballots. "Ballot counting takes two months," observes Bondoc. "So much so that candidates spend half their campaign funds buying votes, and the other half paying off election supervisors for dagdag-bawas (vote padding-shaving). That is why no loser ever concedes defeat, but instead clogs the election
tribunals with protest cases."

Where will the candidates get the money to run and how will they pay it back?

The presidential system is corrupt and simply changing presidents will not cure the sick system. The dictum "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is nowhere more true than in the Philippines.

"We don't know if a parliamentary system will work but we know that the presidential system just doesn't work so we owe it to ourselves to give the parliamentary system a try," said Filipino-American lawyer Ted Laguatan, expressing a sentiment that is becoming widespread.

A unicameral parliamentary system will have fewer politicians because the Cabinet will be composed of members of parliament. It will cost far less to win a seat in parliament and then be elected Prime Minister by your peers than to run for president in national elections. And if a majority want to bring down the Prime Minister, a simple vote of no
confidence is all that is needed, instead of wasteful impeachment scenarios.

But I still had questions about the impact of the proposed charter change on the right to suffrage of overseas Filipinos. I posed my questions to Jarius Bondoc, a member of the Philippine Constitutional Commission (the ConCom) which drafted proposals for submission to the Philippine Congress.

Jarius e-mailed the following answers to my questions:

"(1) First, on citizenship, we proposed to allow dual citizenship. This means dual citizens will have the right to suffrage.

(2) On suffrage, there was a debate on overseas absentee voting (because some members believe it is unworkable, based on the experience of the first such voting in 2004). Still, our proposal was to allow it.

(3) On voting for members of parliament, this shall be a combination of election by district and by sector representation, which can alternately be called party-list voting.

(4) On sectors, we proposed: "...political parties shall ensure that the labor, peasant, urban poor, veterans, indigenous peoples, women, youth, differently-abled, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector, are properly represented."

Checking the ConCom website, www.concom.ph, I found this provision: "The Parliament shall be composed of as many Members as may be provided by law, who shall be elected from parliamentary districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation by the political parties according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections."

"The Members chosen by the political parties shall constitute thirty per centum of the total number of Members including those elected by Parliament. Each parliamentary district and each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative."

If the estimated 8-million strong overseas Filipino community formed a political party and that party obtained 10% of the national vote, then 10% of the total party-list vote would go to the party representing overseas Filipinos. This would ensure representation in the Philippine Parliament for those who remit an estimated $12B a year to their relatives in the Philippines and are concerned about the Filipino veterans equity, the legalization of TNTs in the US, the exploitation of OFWs by unscrupulous recruiters and other such global Filipino issues.

The various proposals of the Concom for a parliamentary-unicameral system will now be considered by the Philippine Congress which can constitute itself as a Constitutional Assembly (ConAss) and present a proposed charter change to the people for a vote.

A plebiscite on the proposed charter change to a parliamentary-unicameral system may be held this year or, more likely, next year. Overseas Filipinos who register to vote in their local Philippine consulates may be able to vote and meaningfully participate in the resolution of this issue.

Are we ready to dance the Cha Cha?

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.