The document discusses how changing the Philippine constitution through charter change could help improve governance. Specifically, it argues that amending rules around electing leaders like the president and legislators could help address issues like weak political parties, divisive executive-legislative relations, and a lack of accountability. The current direct election system where the president is separately elected from legislators discourages voters from considering candidates' party affiliations and perpetuates an unstable political environment. Charter change presents an opportunity to modify electoral structures and rules in ways that could encourage more stable governance and mature political parties focused on important issues.
The document discusses how changing the Philippine constitution through charter change could help improve governance. Specifically, it argues that amending rules around electing leaders like the president and legislators could help address issues like weak political parties, divisive executive-legislative relations, and a lack of accountability. The current direct election system where the president is separately elected from legislators discourages voters from considering candidates' party affiliations and perpetuates an unstable political environment. Charter change presents an opportunity to modify electoral structures and rules in ways that could encourage more stable governance and mature political parties focused on important issues.
The document discusses how changing the Philippine constitution through charter change could help improve governance. Specifically, it argues that amending rules around electing leaders like the president and legislators could help address issues like weak political parties, divisive executive-legislative relations, and a lack of accountability. The current direct election system where the president is separately elected from legislators discourages voters from considering candidates' party affiliations and perpetuates an unstable political environment. Charter change presents an opportunity to modify electoral structures and rules in ways that could encourage more stable governance and mature political parties focused on important issues.
The document discusses how changing the Philippine constitution through charter change could help improve governance. Specifically, it argues that amending rules around electing leaders like the president and legislators could help address issues like weak political parties, divisive executive-legislative relations, and a lack of accountability. The current direct election system where the president is separately elected from legislators discourages voters from considering candidates' party affiliations and perpetuates an unstable political environment. Charter change presents an opportunity to modify electoral structures and rules in ways that could encourage more stable governance and mature political parties focused on important issues.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government
Ateneo De Manila University
Charter change: electing our leaders and designing our government
Alma Ocampo Salvador Charter change may be good for us if by undertaking it, basic structures and institutions can be re-aligned towards objectives of efficiency and good governance. During the administration of Fidel Ramos, anti-cha cha sentiments were strongerfrom inside government, the Lakas party, civil society groups and academe. Today, however, the demand for changing the charter resonates louder much louder than previous arguments that maintained that a cha-cha would not change our political landscape because new structures would not simply kick out bad habits and old ways. Fortunately, the reverse can be true. We, individuals are not sole agents of change. In fact, structures that we install ourselves by putting in new laws and policies can induce us to modify our behavior. Thus we realize why Filipinos evolve as better and more disciplined motorists when they are in America, Europe or Subic. Filipinos have obviously adapted to new rules of the gameespecially when these rules are clear and are enforced. If the 1987 Constitution is to be viewed as a grand book of rules, then changing it by rearranging or creating new rules, such as rules of electing our leaders, particularly our president and legislators and how they are positioned in government, may be able to induce some forms of individual or perhaps cultural transformations among members of society at large. Bayani Fernando, former mayor of Marikina City has adopted this logic. Albeit an extreme example to show the relationship between institutions and social practices, the Marikina case may be used to a certain extent to examine specific areas in Fernandos local management where he legitimized structural and legislative overhauls in the city once inundated by floods, garbage and crime. BFs governance style may be construed to stem from a management position that new regulations can shape or even re-construct peoples attitudes and behavior. For instance, new ordinances were put in place to change the previous system of garbage collection and disposal. BF was certain that if garbage collection were regularized and collected only when wrapped and displayed during designated collection days, then residents would respond to manage their garbage accordingly. Charter change can be a process of re-arranging or modifying current structures of government legitimized by constitutional rules. Let us consider amending the rules of electing our president and our representatives, rules that determine their terms, the structure of representation (like how many chambers of congress and how they are to be arranged), or the rules that establish how many parties can be allowed to participate during elections. While the system of direct vote has institutionalized popular democracy particularly among the poor, established a government based on independence and separation of the three branches of government and installed democratic politics through multiparties, these specific constitutional rules have inadequately contributed to an elevation of party and electoral politics and political stability for the Philippine society.
Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government
Ateneo De Manila University
To begin with, a direct election of the chief executive separate from
legislative elections does not provide incentives for our parties to mature in issues and purpose. Five decades of experience since 1935, separation of powers has not induced voters to take into consideration the party origin of their presidential candidate who campaigned in isolation from legislative players. At the congressional level, this has resulted in various practices where presidential candidates anoint or adopt into his or her party, candidates even if they have disparate party affiliations. On the other hand, creating a senatorial line-up and ensuring that the turn out matches with the party of the winning president has since been a wait and see game for the winning presidential candidate. On the whole, direct vote and separation of powers condition Filipino voters to randomly assign politicians in power based on disorganized electoral choices. When in power, direct elections of the chief executive separate from legislative elections perpetuate divisive and confrontational instead of cooperative executive and legislative politics. Direct and separate legislative elections do not facilitate a weaving of executive and legislative agenda. This structure instead tends to create a chasm in executive-legislative dynamics due to law-making deadlocks, unstable rainbow coalitions, and party coups. Under the Ramos and the Estrada administrations, the effect on congress has been constant party defections to the administration party and consequently an institutionalization of a patronage system emanating from the executive. The current arrangement allows for a President to independently test the limits of his or her office. Party control remains extraneous from the government and by experience, the result has been a creation of a politically peripheral administration party that takes upon tasks such as affirming executive action or building electoral machinery instead of perfecting legislative agenda. In the absence of a defined party based position on key issues, direct vote may yield policies that can be perversely populist. (Consider why, for instance jeepney owners and drivers are prevented from hiking fares while oil prices soar?) When combined with multiparty and majoritarian electoral systems, direct vote can yield to a chief executive with plural instead of solid constituencies. This combination of rules creates incentives for the president to never endingly expand his or her electoral support by targeting small publics (such as business groups, militaries, church and civil society) and to constantly rely on survey politics as a barometer of his or her popularity. He or she then tends to become vulnerable to fledgling popular support or worst to negative public opinion. Owing to his or her fixed 6-year term, the chief executive is unable to renew legislative confidence, and may in fact be removed by either collective action (at EDSA) or by a nearly impossible impeachment conviction. Existing constitutional rules on electoral choice, its mechanics and the arrangement of structures for governing (making and implementing laws) have stifled the development of parties into parties of issues and of politics into
Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government
Ateneo De Manila University
politics of accountability. In its place, what we have is the kind of politics
that capitalizes on unique personalities, an election that captures the weak in imagination and that temporarily empowers by manipulation. While it is true that individuals do create structures and are responsible for institutionalizing practices, structures too play a role in reproducing individual actions.