Victory for democracy

The Philippine Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that no president can run for reelection, no matter how popular he may be. The historic decision put an end to the nationwide debate on whether the national constitution should be amended to allow President Fidel Ramos to run for reelection, as many people had wanted him to do.

It also buries any dream the president may have had of another term. But Ramos has repeatedly denied ever harboring such an ambition, although he didn't discourage those who wanted him to remain in power.

The reelection idea has divided Filipinos into two groups: those who do not want to see the successful national development program interrupted just because of the change of the guard, and those who do not want the constitution amended for any reason.

Both reasons are logical because the first group believes Ramos is the leader that the Philippines needs today, while the second group believes that an extended presidential tenure would create a repetition of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos' horrific regime.

The legal solution to the Philippine problem was clearly made possible by the political maturity of the people and the respectability of the Supreme Court. Of course, one cannot expect this kind of problem-solving system in a country where a tradition of presidential succession is nonexistent.

The Philippines has experienced this system before but it was interrupted by Marcos when he introduced martial law in 1972, taking power into his own hands.

President Corazon Aquino replaced the heartless despot in 1986 and resuscitated democracy. This enabled Ramos, who replaced Aquino in 1992, to improve people's welfare. Ramos' achievements were beyond Filipinos' imaginations when they ousted Marcos, or during the Aquino administration which was plagued with military coup attempts, communist rebellion and Moslems' armed struggle for autonomy.

Judging by their political maturity, we are convinced that neither of the Philippines' two camps consider the Supreme Court solution a nightmare but rather a sweet dream.

We should observe their experience and consider it a lesson. Presidential terms have been a topic of discussion here for some time, including the debatable stipulation of the constitutional clause on this matter.

But in this regard, every Indonesian citizen is expected to understand that the situation here differs from other countries. Although there has only been two presidents since Indonesia's independence in 1945, both emerged under extraordinary circumstances. Founding president Sukarno was elected during a turbulent revolution and President Soeharto rose in the wake of the 1965 abortive communist coup attempt.

Since President Soeharto will be 77 years old when the People's Consultative Assembly undoubtedly reelects him next year, the issue of presidential reelection has resurfaced.

The debate refers to the constitutional stipulation that says "a president works for a five-year term and can be reelected". Some people have interpreted this to mean one reelection because it does not say "can be repeatedly reelected". But others have focused their attention on the absence of a time limit.

Many people think the assembly should settle the matter in its five-yearly meeting in March because any future president would not have the authority and legitimate history of Sukarno and Soeharto. But the hope might evaporate as the dominant Golkar said recently it would not touch the matter.

Whether the discussion takes place or not, whatever the highest law-making body decides will show the quality of our nation.

And the Philippines has decided on what it believes to be a triumph for its political system.