|
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Sienes: Form of government not necessary
By Cris G. Sienes
COMMENTARY
HASTE makes waste. This is the reason why doubts and suspicions are cropping up due to the sudden decision of our congressmen to amend certain provisions of the Constitution as soon as possible through a constituent assembly.
Why the haste in amending certain provisions of the Constitution? More specifically, why on the eve of an election year? Are there secret political backing and filling up of juicy posts under the new form of government that our congressmen want to shift to?
Only the Senate stands in the way of the charter change being proposed by our congressmen. A good number of our senators oppose charter change and the shift to a parliamentary form of government.
The senators have their own reasons for opposing charter change now and the shift to a parliamentary form of government. But a more practical reason is that under a parliamentary form of government there will only be one legislative body and the Senate will be abolished.
If you were a senator, would you support a move that would abolish your lofty position in the Senate?
A ranking administration congressman who refused to be identified went on to accuse senators opposed to charter change of political ambition and their desire to hold on to some P200 million in pork barrel funds.
As if political ambition and the desire for pork barrel funds were the monopoly of senators.
Granting there is a need to amend certain provisions of the Constitution, why now and why through a constituent assembly? Why not through a constitutional convention?
Rep. Antonio Nachura, chairperson of the House committee on constitutional amendments, and House Speaker Jose de Venecia have the answers.
Nachura said amending the Constitution through a constitutional convention is not only divisive and expensive but would also expose the charter to the risk of legislators violating their promise to limit changes to three groups of provisions, namely economic, transitory and the provisions on the form of government.
For his part, Speaker de Venecia said amending the Constitution through a constitutional convention would risk putting the charter in the hands of delegates with uncertain track records in lawmaking.
A constitutional convention would be expensive, yes, but why would it be divisive when all proposed amendments would be agreed upon by the delegates? And why would there be a risk involved in amending the Constitution through a constitutional convention? Wouldn’t there be an even greater risk in leaving the Constitution alone to traditional politicians to tinker with?
And why a parliamentary form of government? The reasons given are that our bicameral system is not only expensive but a major source of gridlock in enacting laws, and that because of our expensive bicameral system we are being left behind by our Asian neighbors most of whom have adopted a parliamentary form of government.
It would not be a major source of gridlock if our legislators only have the welfare of the country and people in mind. But in enacting laws, do not politics and personal or vested interests almost always come in?
If we recall our moral philosophy course in college, the actual form of government is not necessary. If it were, there would only be one form of government in all communities or countries. Since the time of Aristotle until now, there has never been an absolute answer to the question, which is the best form of government?
In the final analysis, it is not the form of government but the men running the government. Is there a foolproof guarantee that a parliamentary form of government for the country run by traditional politicians will solve all the ills that plague the country?
If changes have to be made, those changes have to take place in the hearts and minds of our government leaders, not in the Constitution. But would such changes ever occur? Ambot lang.
Finally, it seems that the popular clamor is for a federal form of government. A federal Muslim state in Mindanao will go a long way towards solving the age-old problems in the troubled island.
Point to ponder: “I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government rather than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual.” (Samuel Johnson, Boswell’s Life, March 31, 1772)
(C. Sienes writes for Sun Star Davao)
(May 27, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
