The shift to federal-parliament type of government is accelerating. The President, Senate President, and Speaker have agreed to do it by Constituent Assembly (CA). Convening Congress into such body would be faster, cheaper than electing a Constitutional Convention (CC). Congress, as a CA, would strive to revise the Constitution before the term ends in 2019 of half of the Senate and all of the House of Reps. Well before then, there could be a plebiscite to ratify the revisions. The first national and regional (state) parliaments could be elected by 2019. President Rody Duterte even offers to step down midterm, if only to hasten the shift. All fine and dandy.
But then, will a CA abolish political dynasties? The question arises in light of the very aim of shifting in the first place. That aim is to bring public funds and planning down to localities. The complaint against unitary-presidential form is that “imperial Manila” centralizes all the decisions in government spending. Such system supposedly makes beggars of local governments and stunts the grassroots economy. A federal-parliament purportedly would unshackle the localities by letting them keep the taxes they collect, for spending on localized projects.
Social critics have pointed out that federal-parliament would fail if the same political dynasties were to rule. There would be no real shift. The same clans would capture national and regional parliaments. Clansmen would then collude to channel funds to self-enriching projects. There would be no grassroots economic growth. The political elite still would control everything. If at present the dynasts fast-break government funds from the national to their family strongholds, they would simply reconcentrate the funds straight to their localities under a federal-parliament. Same dog, different collar. With political dynasties staying, the same economic ills would result as in unitary-presidential.
Thus has it been proposed that, in opening up the Constitution for revisions, political dynasties be abolished in the process. The Constitution already forbids dynasties as undemocratic, without defining what constitutes them. Article II State Policies Section 26 states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Congress has to pass an enabling law on degree of relationship, concurrent positions and successive terms to be covered by the ban. Congress has not passed such act since the Constitution was ratified in 1987.
So, will Congress, convening as a CA, abolish dynasties? The answer is obvious. Congress consists of dynasts. That’s precisely the reason why no anti-dynasty law ever has been enacted. Left to themselves, politicians will not legislate themselves out of existence.
Those against CA expectedly will say that a CC would be better because democratically elected. Still, would a CC separate from Congress abolish the dynasties?
Again the answer is obvious. Those to run for seats in the CC would be the spouses, offspring, siblings of the same senator- and congressman-dynasts who would sit in a CA. Outsiders would be uninterested. They know they’d have slim chances of winning against the political headlock of dynasts. That’s precisely why 558 congressional, gubernatorial, and mayoral candidates, mostly re-electionists and all dynasts, ran unopposed in the last election.
The way out and forward is perhaps for politically aware citizens to make their voices heard by the CA. Politicians are sensitive to public opinion, if presented loudly.
(The Philippine Star)
No comments:
Post a Comment