‘These are just two (major) failings, in my book. Failings that I trace to allowing the (anti Marcos) passions to reign, and in the process overcome logic and wisdom.’
IN early 1987, as the Philippines was mulling over whether to adopt or reject the draft Constitution being proposed by the Constitutional Commission that was handpicked by revolutionary president Cory Aquino, I engaged in a made-for-TV debate that pitted UP (Law) against Ateneo (Law) on that very issue.
The UP team took the No side, arguing for the rejection of the draft, while Ateneo argued in favor. A columnist, the venerable Larry Henares, wrote a piece the day after the debate where he said that “No wins debates but Yes will win in the polls.”
Of course, Henares was right – on both counts. People who watched the debate told me that we had the more compelling arguments. But the draft charter was adopted anyway.
Almost 40 years later I still think we rushed into drafting a new Constitution. That wasn’t a surprise: EDSA 1986 was all about rejecting everything about Marcos because everything about Marcos was bad. So we threw out local government officials just as we threw out the Batasan and the 1971 Constitution as amended, and we had 50 handpicked individuals craft a new basic law that was clearly meant to be as anti-Marcos as can be drafted. That’s why, for example, the new Charter was clearly anti-political dynasty, and why party list groups were to be allowed to strengthen the voice of the marginalized.
Nearly 40 years later I think it is clear that we have failed on both counts.
Let’s take the party list system first.
Has the party list system truly helped the marginalized? Don’t make me laugh. Go down the list of the accredited party list groups and you’ll wonder how many of those running for seats are even representatives of marginalized sectors. But what can we do when that’s a product of the “wisdom” of the framers?
As if there weren’t any good examples of how party list systems should be!
Adopting the German model, for example, would have been wiser because it would have strengthened the party system as well. And maybe it would have encouraged the established parties to coalesce – or new ones to emerge from the merged interests of various interest groups, all working within and not outside the party system.
And the anti-dynasty provision? I’ve always wondered, if political dynasties were really so bad, why President Aquino never used a State of the Nation to thump the podium and demand – yes demand – that Congress pass an enabling law to give life to the anti-dynasty provision. Was it because her brother and brother-in-law and sister-in-law and uncle and cousins were key leaders of Congress in the years after EDSA – to be joined later on by nephews and her own son?
Maybe dynasties are only bad if they’re dynasties of the Marcoses?
These are just two (major) failings, in my book. Failings that I trace to allowing the (anti-Marcos) passions to reign, and in the process overcome logic and wisdom.
But we wouldn’t be Filipinos if we don’t let our passions reign, yes?
