Federal versus parliamentary

By Ricky Poca
Cebu Daily NewsFirst Posted 15:29:00 10/21/2008Filed Under: Politics, Government

The problem with today's current political system is that there is so much an adversarial relationship between and among
members of Congress and that of the executive department, headed by the President, so much so that the primary reason for
governance has been neglected or has been distracted. Today one could find our distrustful Congress at war with the
executive department, always conducting congressional inquiries on nearly all programs (and scandals) of the government
that are deemed to be awash with graft and corruption - from the “Hello, Garci” tape to the recently discovered scam at the
Department of Agriculture in which P100-million funds were donated to fictitious foundations.

The presidential wannabes' maneuverings have also affected the Senate as 2010 draws near. Senators Ping Lacson and
Jamby Madrigal are accusing Senate President Manny Villar, the reported Nacionalista Party standard bearer in the 2010
derby, of inserting another budget for the circumferential road project (C-5) in the national capital after it had already been
given a budget that had allegedly benefited Villar's real estate venture.

What is so disgusting is that Congress uses too much tax money for legislative work and the legislators' pork barrel, but our
lawmakers waste too much time on investigations into alleged anomalous transactions of the Arroyo administration, the
President and the First Gentleman, only to find no substantial evidence to directly connect the President or her husband or,
worse, not act on their findings. The Lower House is packed with the President's men, so any attempt at impeaching her
could not even reach the plenary hall.

The people entered the fray by engaging in what they call “people power” acts, which were really unsuccessful attempts to
oust the “abusive and corrupt” president to no avail. We have a president who has studied well the lessons of Edsa 1 and 2.

The endless political squabble between the members of the Senate and of the President is a logical consequence under the
presidential system of government, specifically under the principle of checks and balances, in which one branch of
government checks the exercise of power of another branch for abuses, balancing the exercise of power by the other.
Somehow our political immaturity as a people has led us to the extreme, towards the destruction of this monumental
principle.

There are so many gridlocks in government because of the misuse or abuse of the principle of checks and balances. It is so
difficult, probably next to impossible, to remove an erring president because of the fixed term of office under the present
system, and because she has too many allies in Congress, thanks to pork-barrel politics.

Our country is hard-pressed to institute reforms because of the highly personal system of electing government officials
through the regular process of election. People choose their public officials not on the basis of party platform of government
but on the popularity of the candidates - that is why entertainment celebrities are elected local government leaders,
congressmen, senators, even president.

Our political parties are very weak because each of them is not based on the strength of the party organization and beliefs or
party platform but more on the personalized organization of a candidate down to his/her relatives and circle of friends. If
one is to evaluate carefully the political party structure in our country, one would find that indeed there is no clear party
organization down to the sitio (district) level. What we have are temporary alliances of political bosses and relatives and
friends of political party leaders who are responsible for the election of government leaders.
The end result of such a scheme is the people's dependence on, and the emergence of, political elites in the spectrum of
political and governmental institutions. There is not much proportional representation of the other major and minor sectors
in Congress and other local legislative bodies. Because the people's bases for electing members of Congress and other
legislative bodies are the candidate's personality and popularity, most of our elected officials come from the elite. Congress
has not passed monumental pro-poor laws because most of our lawmakers are big landowners, businessmen, employers, or
minions of the high and mighty. (To be continued)

BULLETIN EDITORIAL: A CITIZEN VIEWS CHARTER

CHANGE

MANILA, JUNE 20, 2006 (BULLETIN) By FIDEL VALDEZ RAMOS Former president of the
Philippines

(Address of Former President Fidel V. Ramos, Chairman, Ramos Peace and Development
Foundation (RPDEV) and Boao Forum for Asia (BFA), Philippine Constitution Association
(Philconsa) General Membership Meeting, Manila Hotel, June 20, 2006.)

I AM honored to be asked to speak before this Association, which is civil society’s guardian of
the Philippine Constitution. I have, as you know, retired from public office – but not from my
responsibilities as a concerned citizen, because citizenship is neither a hobby nor a job but a
lifelong duty. And it is as a citizen among other citizens that I state my reflections and insights
today on the current issue of Constitutional change.

I have long argued that building State capacity is essential to our country’s modernization. In my
view, the overriding object of Charter change should be to empower our people, strengthen
State capacity, and insure good governance.

Measured against the political institutions of our vigorous neighbors, the weakness of our own
institutions is plain to see – in laws honored "in the breach more than in the implementation;" in
a tax effort that is the lowest among comparable economies in East Asia; in the continued
existence of politico-economic oligarchs and of private armies; in the corruptibility of portions of
the officialdom, including the judiciary; in the shallowness of our legislative discourse.

In recent months, a national consensus for amending the 1987 Constitution has been forming.
Such a result should not be all that surprising.

Every Constitution is the mirror of the political culture of its time. And people’s purposes change
as their circumstances and the global environment change, just as the priorities of the political
community change – to suit changing reality.

Why Charter change? Charter change has become critically necessary because the present
political system has become inefficient and inflexible in relation to our present-day needs.

Twice in the last 20 years, citizens backed up by the Armed Forces and National Police have had
to intervene directly in the system of governance – taking upon themselves the task of replacing
first a president perceived to be oppressive and then second, another one perceived to be
corrupt – risking constitutional crisis, civil conflict, and even shooting war in the process. The AFP
and the PNP have been – most unfairly – the objects of a constant tugofwar by various political
factions and interest groups, instead of being kept united and undisputed to enable them (our
Armed Services) to effectively protect public safety and our national integrity.

And because our political parties have been formed around popular personalities, instead of
being based on principled and coherent programs of government, sheer popularity – and not
competence, training and experience – has become the winningest qualification for public office.
Because of basic problems like these, the case of constitutional change has become well-
established.

A Better Future For Young Filipinos

Those who say that constitutional change can wait ignore the urgency of our country’s need for a
new beginning. Our people more and more realize that it is not only individual leaders but the
political system that itself that is responsible for the way we have fallen behind most of our
neighbors in the world’s fastest-growing region, the Asia-Pacific. And this loss of people’s faith in
the quality of our governance has resulted in a growing lack of confidence in our country’s
future.

Already, more than eight million of our people have "exiled" themselves to work in more than
130 foreign countries. Today’s Filipinos have become dispersed to more countries than even the
Jews were, since the Middle Ages – and many more of our people vote with their feet and travel
visas everyday. Indeed, we as elders need to assure our young people that there is hope for
their better future.

Protectionist policies have been written into every Philippine Constitution since 1934. And they
have remained there, despite substantial evidence that it is the country with the open economy,
even if poor initially, that succeeds best in today’s interdependent world. The protectionist
provisions in our Constitution – which limit foreign participation in key sectors such as mining,
agriculture, and public utilities – have operated to choke the flow of foreign direct investments
(FDI) into our economy. Even during my watch on the Presidency (1992-98) – which was a
period of relatively high growth – our country received less than 6 percent of the total FDI that
went into the Southeast Asian region. It is investors – both foreign and local – who create jobs.
But our own Filipino businesspeople cannot create all the jobs: They simply lack the capital
enough to do so.

Today, the only way to get people out of poverty permanently is to give them jobs: Any other
solutions is merely palliative. Populist, give-away programs may gain "pogi" points for the
incumbents but serve to prolong outside perception that ours is a weak State.

Let us take a minute to consider the formula for growth and investment familiar to our
economists.

UP Professor (Dr.) Arsenio Balisacan, President of the Human Development Network, Philippines,
whose field is poverty studies, notes that "the main reason for the relatively low growth in the
Philippines is primarily the short duration of growth and the slowness of this growth." Dr.
Balisacan figures that, if we are to significantly reduce mass-poverty among our people, we need
to grow – over these next 10-12 years – by a minimum 7 percent annually. This is also the well-
publicized assessment and advice of the Asian Development Bank for "backsliding" countries in
the Asia-Pacific region.

And if we are to grow by 7 percent, expert analysts say we need to invest at least 30 percent of
our gross domestic product (GDP) every year. Unfortunately, we Filipinos save at best only 19
percent of our GDP. In ASEAN, the savings rate is at 31 percent on average. Simple arithmetic
tells us why foreign investment is crucial to our economy. Since we need to invest 30 percent of
GDP, but save only 19 percent on average, we have a yearly financing gap that the
Congressional Planning and Budget Office estimated to be equal to 11 percent of GDP. In 2000,
for instance, that financing gap was equivalent to about US.4 billion. Usually, countries could
bridge this gap by public and private borrowings. But, in our case, the gap was just too great –
since the FDI in that particular year was only US.3 billion.

In a qualitative sense, the constitutional restrictions on foreign investment hurt our economy
even more – now that FDI is valued less for the capital it brings in than for the technological,
managerial, and production skills that come with FDI into any country.

The Key Amendments

Since late 1991, I have come to believe honestly that no less than a transformation from the
presidential to the parliamentary form has become critical. In view, the basic problem is
systemic. I also seek the immediate reform of our electoral system.

Let me elaborate briefly on these two fundamental changes that I see as urgent.

First – the failure of presidential democracy in our country.

For the first Philippine Republic, the Malolos Congress had chosen the parliamentary system
based on the European mode. Then, we borrowed the presidential system from the American
during the Commonwealth period (1935-1946) and then embraced it since winning back our
independence from the US. Yet, our circumstances have always been far different from that of
the Americans.

The American Founding Fathers – in trying, well over two centuries ago, to establish liberal
democratic government in a vast and diverse society – deliberately designed their Constitution to
avoid a strong central government because of the rights of their separate states that were
already well-established. And this they managed by dividing government’s powers: Horizontally
– between the federal government and its constituent states; and vertically – among the
legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The presidential system has obviously worked well
for the Americans. In our own experience, however, this elaborate system of checks-and-balance
among the three branches has produced more often than not administrative and political
gridlock. (Consider, for instance, the infighting in our twochamber legislature. With half of the
year gone, Congress has yet to pass the 2006 budget.)

Within the context of our fractionalized and personalized political system of today, domestic
policymaking has largely become a game with no winners – in which the President, the two
Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court all hold veto powers against each other.

For any policy to be carried out, all the players holding vetoes must agree. In reality, whatever is
the least common denominator of agreement among the veto-holders has become the norm for
most of our policy-making – but not the national interest.

The lack of accountability in the presidential system and its institutional rigidity have been
another plague on our politics. Since the President is accountable directly to the electorate,
he/she is – in practice – really answerable to no one the moment he/she is elected. And, as we
saw in 2000-2001, a President can even defy or ignore public opinion with impunity – because
the fixed presidential term also makes impeachment tremendously difficult.
Parliamentary government avoids most of these problems simply by fusing the Legislature and
the Executive. Under said system, the Legislature combines the role of an elected assembly
responsible for passing laws and levying taxes, with the essential function of providing the
political personnel for government. The system also enables young members of Parliament who
have the potential for national – and international – leadership to experience the executive
management of government agencies, departments and ministries. Thus, merit and capacity
become the main determinants for the election of leaders – not just survey ratings and
popularity. The moment the Government loses Parliament’s confidence, it is obliged to resign –
to enable a new government to be formed.

The parliamentary system will not only make Philippine government more open and more
accountable. It will enable our people to replace an oppressive, corrupt and/or non-performing
Chief Executive democratically and smoothly – without risking deep political schisms; the
constant push-and-pull upon our soldiers, policemen, veterans and our armed services; and even
bloody civil war.

The modernization of the electoral process I see as the second key reform our political system
needs.

Indeed the prospect of honest, orderly, peaceful elections (H-O-P-E) which are credible to the
people might start off a virtuous cycle – by reducing the influence of dynastic families and,
increasingly, of criminal syndicates in elections; and by encouraging bright, young politicians to
contest the leadership of local government units controlled by the factional political machines. I
believe electoral reform might just break the logjam of corruption that blocks the flow of good
governance.

Reforming the electoral process will be all the more significant if it is taken together with the
shift to the parliamentary system. But whether we go through with Charter change or not,
modernization of our electoral process – its computerization, simplification and timeliness – is a
reform we can no longer put off.

Most urgently, we must establish a truly autonomous Commission on Elections – one made up of
unimpeachable personalities and vested with as much majesty and prestige as that which
dignifies the Supreme Court. We should also give this invigorated Comelec the primary
responsibility for drawing up the rules for the public financing of the basic activities of qualified
political parties.

In Mexico, it was mainly structural electoral reform that, in the year 2000, ended 71 years of
one-party rule.

Transforming to the parliamentary system should accelerate stabilization and institutionalization

of our political groupings and make our political parties – not personalist political leaders – as the
main engines of the sustainable development of the nation.

Right now, our political elite is too fragmented even to agree on coherent national policies sorely
needed for our sustained development. Because political power is so broadly but so inequitably
dispersed, and because we have no political parties strong enough to gather the local factions
into disciplined national groupings that have an encompassing and enduring interest in what
happens to national society, our country has suffered from political stalemate these past four
years.

Like any other self-respecting democracy, of course, ours is equipped with the usual majority
and opposition parties. But Philippine political parties do not govern. It is superstar politicians
who do. Charter change would give political parties a more central role – because parliamentary
government is party government. The perpetual threat of a "no confidence" vote will encourage
cohesion within the governing majority.

The "confidence requirement" built into the parliamentary system so that the legislative majority
can continue governing creates a strong incentive for the ruling party to maintain party discipline
and individual righteousness – and above all, to govern capably in accordance with the national,
not vested, interests.

For as long as the Philippine State is so weak and its finances are so low, we will need to limit its
scope to the most vital public services. But we must also need to strengthen the State’s
capability to deliver these vital services.

Raising political capacity – in my view – means increasing the credibility of Government and the
efficiency of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the National Police and the Judiciary. It also
means setting high standards – of personal integrity, efficiency and accountability – for those
who manage the affairs of the State. A "small" state can be a strong state – if it keeps focused in
its most necessary and most urgent tasks. To equate democracy with weakness is to lose sight
of the historical fact that democracies that have survived and prospered did so because of their
political capacity, not because of other physical limitations. A democratic government is not
compelled to be weak; indeed, a weak government can only dissipate democracy by failing to
promulgate correct strategic policies and carry them out. Weak government, let us never forget,
is the real breeding groups of coups, rebellions, insurgencies and revolutions.

In today’s world of the 21st century, any country that lacks resources, even manpower, energy
and technology can "outsource" everything that it needs except for national pride, cohesion,
efficiency, teamwork, and good governance – which must be homegrown!!!

Democracy Requires Constant

And Vigorous Reassessment

In conclusion, let me say that parliamentary government will not be an instant political cure-all,
neither a magic economic silver-bullet. It is unlikely to ease quickly our deep-rooted problems of
mass poverty, political disunity and unequal access to political power. Indeed, it may only play to
our factional tendencies and produce "revolving-door governments" – just as it did in Italy for 40
years after World War II. Or, our political factions could develop as the "tribes" in Japan’s ruling
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) have done. The LDP "tribes" have simply divided among
themselves control of the legislative programs to benefit specific economic sectors – and
therefore, the control of the flow of political donations from those sectors.

There will be many other pitfalls in the shift. We can foresee many strange political bedfellows in
constantly-shifting coalition governments. And, populist tendencies and temptations may be
even stronger because of politicians focused only on staying in office.

Political reform will not by itself solve all our political, economic and social problems. The shift to
a new system will not automatically bring about a new political era in our country – but systemic
transformation will be a fresh effort towards a higher quality of life for Filipinos. And so, let us
begin.

Finally, let me emphasize that we will still need good, consistent leadership to make Philippine
democracy work for the common tao – leaders with a strong sense of the national interest,
instead of the political operators and "trapos" that the present system nurtures. A democracy
requires a vigorous and continuing self-assessment of the constitutional system on which it
stands. It cannot afford to confine itself to the political orthodoxies of any historical period.

By way of democratic, principled debate and consensus-building, whatever system we come up

with must reconcile the conflicting claims of all the special interests in national society. And
democracy must also stop to listen to what ordinary people want – because it is they who must
pay the price of political fragmentation and economic non-performance.

In reality, no democracy is ever fully completed. In the fullest sense of the word, democracy will
always be a work in progress and an ideal to be attained only through the combined effort of all
citizens.

In our time, our most urgent need is for a Constitution that will serve – responsively and flexibly
– the need of our national community to modernize our institutions, to uplift our economy, to
eliminate mass poverty, to harmonize our social relationships, to regain a place of respect in the
community of nations – a position which we once occupied – and most of all, to empower
common Filipinos to achieve a better future.

Clearly, without reforming our institutions of governance, we will be unable to accomplish much.

Thank you and Mabuhay (Best wishes) to all!!!