I am not someone who has a deep understanding of the Philippine political system. But it just occured to me this morning that the present system really needs to go. There has been a lot of constitutional changes made in the Philippines, with cha-cha movements in the air-waves most of the time.
The problem with these cha-cha movements is that they are opaque really on the extent of changes they want. Whatever mode of charter change they will do, be it constitutional convention, constituent assembly, or people’s initiative, the framers can surreptitiously add changes that are self-serving, beneficial to a few and won’t be good for the entire Philippines, like for example allowing foreign ownership. So I think these people who are clamoring for charter change must catalogue all the changes they want and include the scope of charter change when a charter change law is passed. By going public with the scope of charter change from the get-go before the charter change is passed, the citizenry can influence what matters need to be added on or taken off from such catalogue of changes. Only with that can they gain the trust, confidence and respect of the general public and fellow politicians who are wary of the more traditional politicians.
But still, yes, the Philippines do need to change the institutions as it is broken. Here’s my wish-list.
- Change in constitutional change.
Other ways to amend the constitution should be added and in what situation these ways are applicable. Con-con should be used whenever there are substantial changes in the constitution, like changes in form of government (Bicalmeral vs Unicameral, Central vs Federal, Presidential vs Parliamentary), the bill of rights, etc. I think the other manners of charter change (con-ass, people’s initiative) should be restricted in their use and limited to amendment of bits and pieces in the charter. I am also proposing 1 more way of ammending the constitution with limited scope similar to USA-style amendments of their constitution, where they amend the constitution with numbered amendments, like the 6th Amendment. The US Congress makes proposals, and these are ratified by their state legislatures. I think this is formally different but substantially the same with the 4th mode proposed by House Speaker Prospero Nograles (the normal legislative route wherein the House will transmit the proposal to the Senate after the House approves the measure).
- Change in government structures.
The political subdivisions shall be national, state (like USA), canton (like Switzerland, from current electoral districts), town/city and baranggay. The provinces should be abolished. The legislative and executive branch of the government shall be separate.
The centralized form of government should be changed to federal form of Government for the following reasons:
- for proper division of work. The national government can focus on issues that are of national/international import like foreign affairs, defence, national economy, and coordination of federal states’ affairs and not be distracted by local issues that can be solved at the local government level. The state government can adapt laws and regulations fitting to its constituents.
- It fits more a country that is ethnically diverse and geographically discontinuous (islands). States with different culture, language or religion can self-govern themselves without being marginalized, like ARMM and Cordillera. It would also preserve the territorial integrity of the country, as no state will think of seceeding.
- There will be more development of the countryside, so there will be less pressure to go to Manila and Manila and other cities can be decongested.
- The state government is a pool out of which those who want to serve the national government will be tested.
The presidential form of government should stay, as I think that having a parliamentary form of government is less stable than a presidential form of government. There should be a unicameral legislature on both the national and state level as it would ensure more efficient and productive lawmaking process. There will be no need to harmonize two versions of the law, no bickerings between lower and upper house.
- Change in type of government from democratic oligarchy to democratic meritocracy.
The Philippines is believed to be a democracy, but in fact is a democratic oligarchy. Neither is a good type of government for these islands. It is in the nature of democracy that it is an expensive popularity contest decided by people with limited resources and abilities to choose among the many candidates who are superficially interchangeable in their fitness to do the most demanding, delicate and powerful job in the land. This results in the Philippines being governed by either the rich or famous yet unfit for presidency.
This is why I suggest that the Philippines should switch to a democratic meritocracy and enshrine that concept in the constitution. Meritocracy is the rule by a group of people with special credentials. This is also called aristocracy but I will avoid the term as it can also mean monarchy where nobilities have hereditary rights to an office. These special credentials do not include nobility, wealth, popularity, heredity and intelligence, plus people can lose their special credentials. This special credential is performance excellence on a lower level of political subdivision (National < State, Canton, Town/City < Baranggay).
The disastrous effects of "collective wisdom of individual ignorance" (H.L. Mencken) should be mitigated by limiting its role as the level of government rises. Citizens can directly elect and remove officials at the baranggay level. Any official who performs poorly or dishonorably will be removed from office, of course as provided by laws. Election for that office can then be held in a short period covering that political subdivision and without need to wait for a simultaneous national election for similar offices. Such election shall be funded by the coffers of the state.
The local government offices for the state, canton and town/city should be unavailable to those who
- have never hold a lower local government office before,
- have held the same position for at least one full-term,
- have been public officials but have performed poorly or dishonorably, and
- are related to the incumbent (whether dead or alive) official by affinity or consanguinity.
Any private person who wants to be elected in either the state, canton, or town/city must serve first in the baranggay level. The legislative functions of the local government can only be filled in from other officials who have done legislative branch functions of the government, and the same applies for the executive branch.
Offices on the national level have the following requirements:
- candidates must have served in the same executive or legislative branch in the state (President to have been a state governor, Senator to have been a state congressman, Minister to have been a state minister, to professionalize it),
- must not have held the same position for at least one full-term (1 term limit),
- have held public offices and performed excellently and honorably, and
- are not related to the incumbent (whether dead or alive) official by affinity or consanguinity.
For the presidency, the league of state governors (past and present) will vote among themselves the 4 contenders for presidency. Then the top 2 contenders in a nation-wide election will assume the presidency and vice-presidency. Lateral movement from the legislative or judicial to the executive should not be allowed, as it removes the opportunity to appraise performance on a similar executive role. Thus, A Senator, Minister or Justice cannot run for Presidency directly, unless they were previously a state governor. Movement from executive to the legislative or judiciary is possible, as long as the person has been appraised by the Commission on Elections as possessing the proper qualifications.
Performance is determined by governance ratings which shall be objective, numeric and transparent to the public. Non-government organizations shall propose the governance criteria and ratified by popular vote. Governance appraisal and criteria shall be public records and conducted by NGO's and Commission on Elections in tandem. It is the Commission on Elections who will come up with a unified ratings but NGOs are required for more direct citizen involvement and say in the appraisal process.
All public offices must have a tenure of 5 years. The basis of impeaching or unseating a public official shall be expanded, based on the governance ratings and appraisal criteria. Other things that I want to see are more competitive government pay compared with private employment, reduction of bloated government manpower and removal of pork barrels.
- Change in language policy.
English should not be an official language. The official national language shall be Filipino only. Filipino shall not be based on Tagalog alone but on all the languages of the Philippines. Filipino shall effectively be a constructed language derived from the most logical, regular structures and features of all the Philippine languages. The official state languages shall be Filipino and the native languages in each state once they surpass 1 million speakers (Tagalog, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Ilocano, Waray, Bikol, Kapampangan, etc). Once an official state language, such language shall have its own language commission. One language should have 1 comission, even if the language is spoken in 2 states. Languages of other sovereign states shall not be promoted by the Philippine government, but students are required to study at least 2 foreign languages (English, Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, Japanese, French, German, Russian, Malay, Portuguese, Hindi, Cantonese, etc).
Why am I proposing such draconian measures above, and not limiting it to the proposals on changes in the form of government? I think the opinion that "Its the people behind the government, not the form of government that will determine our progress" is not only naive but should be seriously challenged. To quote from Milton Friedman "What kind of a society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm…Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it". And Lyndon Johnson adds "You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered". Saying that centralized form of government works well in France and federal form of government works well in the USA is meaningless. Institutions must be suited to the culture and temperament of the people. That's why the Philippines must ponder and adopt an institution or government suited for itself.
Tahoŋ kadlagan чakoh (I am a man of the forest).
