Amendments divert Manila's focus

Amando Doronila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

It is bad omen that close on the heels of the inauguration last June 30 of the new government of President Macapagal-Arroyo, a scramble has developed to initiate the process of amending the 1987 Constitution to shift to a parliamentary system.

The race was jump-started last Friday, three days after the inauguration, by Sen. Juan Flavier with a bill calling for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention in May next year. Palawan Rep. Abraham B. Mitra followed suit with a similar bill.

The bills, tabled even before the new government could warm its seat on the 10-point economic and social agenda outlined by the President in her inaugural speech, hijacked the focus of the new presidency toward a contentious political issue that competes for attention with the administration's economic concerns, following a deeply divisive presidential election. The question is, can the administration afford such a diversion? It is expected to deliver results on its agenda in the immediate term, not six years from now. The move engages the county in a running political debate that could push to the sidelines the priorities of the 10-point agenda.

What the country expects are results, not more talk. Unfortunately, the Charter-change issue was inserted into the fast-track of the congressional agenda even before the new administration could gather momentum for its first 100 days.

This is not how Speaker Jose de Venecia and Senator Flavier, the leaders of the fast-track brigade, see the priority.

The fact that Flavier, a member of the victorious K-4 administration coalition, started the ball rolling for constitutional change, indicates cracks in party discipline and cohesion of the new majority in terms of their priorities. The Cha-cha initiatives immediately stirred up debates over the best mode to change the Charter (a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention) and whether President Arroyo becomes a transitional President by the middle of her six-year term.

Flavier made the move apparently without prompting or receiving signals from higher party authorities. This indicates that he was acting like as a loose cannon, another example of the star syndrome afflicting senators. It also reflects the lack of coordination in the majority coalition on important economic and political policy issues and even on their priorities.

The early opening of the constitutional issue is certain to spawn a host of complex and vexatious issues that are going to divert the attention of the new government from the economic priorities outlined by the President's 10-point agenda. Its introduction is a case of bad timing. It came as government economic managers were preparing to hold this week an urgent meeting to avert a fiscal crisis. The economic managers are cracking their heads over drastic austerity measures to cut costs and avoid falling deeper in debt over the next six to 18 months. Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin said the President saw the budget deficit as a "serious problem," and this concern got the highest priority during the first Cabinet meeting after the inauguration.

The introduction of the constitutional change issue drives an early cleavage in the ranks of the new majority. Senate President Franklin Drilon does not share the enthusiasm of the Speaker and Flavor to jump into the fast lane of Cha-cha. Drilon warned that this is not the time to start the project of constitutional change. He said putting constitutional change on top of the agenda would cause "more uncertainty and instability." At this time, he said, the country needs political stability very badly, after going through an election that had caused much uncertainty. He said that the Cha-cha issue was sending mixed signals that blur the focus set by the President on the fiscal deficit.

De Venecia is far from reassuring when he contends that the 10-point agenda does not compete with the issue of Charter change. He does not tell us how the President can deliver on the programs while her concentration is divided between the framing of a new constitution and delivering results.

With this clash of priorities, the new majority does not need the political opposition to tear it apart. The important issue raised by the Cha-cha initiatives is not whether change is desirable but what is the best time to launch the project. Calling an election of delegates to a constitutional convention next year is certain to divert attention from the implementation of the 10-point agenda. Time constraints do not allow the President to complete the agenda by mid-term even as she sets up the structure of the parliamentary system.

The Cha-cha project puts to the test the President's leadership of her winning coalition and her ability to get her priorities done. She has to crack the whip on the party on, at the very least, the question of the timing of the launch of the Cha-cha project. De Venecia has given her the dilemma of demonstrating what is more important to her: constitutional change or her economic and social agenda.

Already, signs that the nation is being distracted by a political exercise away from its economic concerns are spreading from the political sector to the mass media. The media have begun to be preoccupied with the new debate over constitutional change, replacing the last election as the theme of the debate. The fiscal deficit and the question of reigniting economic growth are being relegated to the background because of the media's fascination with new political issues. With the media's continuing love affair with politics, the political sector has found an ally in fueling a contentious debate over Charter change at the expense of economic concerns.