In law classes all across this country, we teach how the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution went through a lot of trouble installing guard rails to prevent a repeat of autocratic abuse in government.
We made sure that martial law can never again be declared but under the direst of conditions, and for no longer than sixty days.
ONE citizen is all it takes now to question the propriety of declaring martial law before the Supreme Court, which can take no longer than thirty days to decide.
The Supreme Court, it was assumed, would decide purely on merits and not be influenced by politics. Why? Because the justices, once appointed, need no confirmation from the Commission on Appointments of Congress.
Congress cannot strangulate the Supreme Court into subservience by fiscal means because the Constitution gives it a non-diminutable budget which must be automatically released upon appropriation.
We made sure the President cannot be re-elected. From his term of four years under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, with no re-election cap, we fixed his term at six years. Some said four years is too long for a bad president and too short for a good one. So we reckoned six years is long enough for ANY president. We did not contemplate his DESCENDANTS, though.
Local governments were strengthened by giving them wide-ranging autonomy, including the power to generate their own revenues and an assured portion of all national internal revenues generated from their jurisdictions. To prevent the rise of warlordism, we limited the term of office of local officials to three years, and imposed a three-term limit.
Lamest of all its promises, the 1987 Constitution urged Congress to enact a law that would eliminate political dynasties. There is no serious legislative proposal to date, in largest part due to the resistance to doing it by—who else—the political dynasties.
We reinvented the Senate so that even though the senators have a term as long as a president (6 years) HALF of their number of 24 expire every three years. This assures us of a “fresh batch” of 12 senators being elected, mentored in the first three years of their term by the 12 senior senators serving the remaining three years of theirs.
This built-in peer-mentoring system ensured that regardless of political party affiliations, the Senate as a Committee of the Whole would always gravitate to the tendency of “diverse unity.”
This is harder to accomplish in the 250+ seat-House of Representatives. We have abandoned the traditional Two-Party system, there is now in place a multi-party system. If this was not cacophonic enough, these multiple parties are free to form “rainbow coalitions” usually controlled by the leadership of the “ruling party” that invariably, if not obligatorily, includes the sitting President.
Under-representation of people in the “laylayan?” No problem—we instituted the system of “partylist nomination” whereby underprivileged and minority groups that garner the highest number of nationwide votes to fill 20% of the House membership would be able to send their “nominee” as their partylist representative.
Do you know the rationale for this? If partylist representatives control 20% of the House, this means even if there should be a total bi-polarization of the remaining 80%--as when they are divided right down the middle "50-50"--it is the marginalized sector, by adding their 20% to whichever 40% of a divided House, who would determine the legislative direction. For the FIRST TIME in Philippine history, it is the peasantry that will dominate legislation, giving substance to Ramon Magsaysay's mantra, "those who have less in life should have more in law."
The assumption, of course, is that the "partylist system" would not be subverted.
In the beginning, it was meant to afford representation to MARGINALIZED sectors, like farmers, fishermen, laborers, etc.
In time, the definition of “marginalized” diversified, too. Today, it can practically include any exotic grouping, like maybe “marginalized golf players with a 28-plus handicap”, “unemployed owners of Bugati Veyrons” or “Ferrari drivers with Attention Deficit Disorders.” Based on plain observation alone, some of these so-called “partylist representatives” are some of the wealthiest billionaires in the country.
Is the system of “check-and-balance” in government still in place then?
Let’s see. You have a Congress dominated by the “ruling party” at all times, including the reserved representation for the “laylayan.” A Supreme Court with only one (1) justice NOT appointed by the same president. Local government autonomy that has turned into a big joke. "Exhibit A" is a failed autonomous region in the Cordilleras (who, mysteriously reject autonomy THEMSELVES!) and "Exhibit B" an uncontrollable autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao that owes less allegiance to the central government and more to the global Arab nation. Separation of powers among the three branches of government--Executive, Legislative and Judiciary--is now only practically manifested by having different office logos. Lastly, a political party system that has more entities than the United Nations.
It doesn’t look too good. The only consolation you can really have is the First Provision in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies. But WHO even memorized THAT?*
No comments:
Post a Comment