state of a nation divided

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered her State of the Nation Address in a joint session of Congress at the Batasang Pambansa yesterday afternoon. Unlike her previous SONAs, this one was concise and straight to the point. Instead of the usual 'long list of accomplishments' (though she did mention quite a few of her achievements), President Arroyo cut straight to the chase.

Our political system has degenerated to the extent that it has become impossible for anyone to make any headway yet keep his hands clean. Perhaps we have strained the present political system to its final limit.

She acknowledged the failings of our current political system and its implications on the growth of our nation. To solve this problem, she called for a Constitutional Assembly which will change our current presidential-unitary system to a parliamentary-federal system.

It is time to start the great debate on charter change.

Charter change, an issue that has been around since former President Fidel V. Ramos' administration, calls for the amendment of the Constitution through either the aforementioned Constitutional Assembly, where Congress is turned into a "constituent body exercising special power to formulate a new constitution or propose amendments to the constitution", or through a Constitutional Convention, where the people elect delegates that will form a body which will either amend the existing Constitution or frame an entirely new Constitution.

The major amendments to the Constitution suggested by those who support charter change include a shift from a presidential system of government to a parliamentary system, and a reorganization of the country into a federal republic.

A parliamentary system of government is characterized by the fusion of the executive and legislative bodies of a presidential system into one body called a 'parliament'. Members of Parliament elect a Prime Minister, who serves as the head of the government. There may also be a president, but he/she would only be holding a 'ceremonial' position. The obvious difference from our current system is that the head of state is no longer elected by the people, but by the representatives of the people. Another difference is the removal of the 'checks and balances' of the presidential system, where the separate executive and legislative bodies serves as a check to either bodies' initiatives.

Federalism is a system of government that unites independent states within a larger political framework, but still allows each state to maintain its own political integrity. It is a shift from the centralized government we have today, where all decisions filter down from the center of power. Federalism allows the individual states to have their own laws and gives local government a greater autonomy in managing their constituents. The state governments would also be able to tailor their policies to better serve their state, allowing more efficient allocation of resources and development of local economic centers. The people will also be able to participate more in government, as power has been devolved to units closer to the people. Federalism also allows the central or federal government to focus on issues of national importance, removing the need for the national government to micromanage local issues.

(For more information see the Institute for Popular Democracy's Primer on Charter Change and the Newsbreak article "A New Order")

However, one can question the timing of the proposed charter change. Is this an administration ploy to appease the legislators who may in the near future vote to impeach President Arroyo? Is it a last-ditch attempt to save an embattled President who has barely survived numerous consecutive scandals that have threatened to destroy her presidency? But more importantly, is the country really ready for charter change?

Granted, the country does need a systemic change to clear out the roots of the problems plaguing the nation. I am still a bit skeptical of parliamentarism, but I believe that federalism will do great wonders for our country, as it holds great potential for solving the problems in Mindanao for it will allow the Muslims greater autonomy, and it will also help boost our weakened economy. However, with the current political climate and the massive number of problems that need immediate attention, is this really the right time to be talking about charter change? More to the point, is the country stable enough to allow the constitutional assembly proposed by President Arroyo?

I don't think so. Our politicians today are, how can I say it, not trustworthy enough to be allowed to draft a new Constitution. With the prevalence of corruption among the ranks of our esteemed legislators, and their tendency to place self interest before national interest, I believe that a Constitutional Assembly is too risky a means for constitutional change. Our country is also plagued by socio-economic problems such as the diminishing quality of education and the weakening of our healthcare due to the exodus of qualified teachers, doctors, and nurses from our country and the lack of funds due to a budget that prioritizes debt servicing (94% of the national budget) above the needs of the people. Before we even consider putting government on hold for a charter change, we should first stabilize the country and attend to the needs of the people.

Then and only then can we start the 'great debate on charter change'.