SALUTATIONS I am here not to talk to you about Charter change alone but also to discuss with you about Filipino patience and resilience.

The Filipino has been through a lot of adversities—a 20-year dictatorship, almost a hundred years of a world power intervention, 4 arduous years of a World War, 400 plus years of feudalism and “friarcracy”, and more than a hundred years of presidential system.  Oh yes, we have been through a tremendous lot.  And yes, through these, we, as a people, have been obscenely resilient and too patient to a fault.

However, we may find hope in the ancient languages saying, “Is quisnam est patiens presto suus mos, which means, he who is patient fulfills his will”.  This same patience waited for this particular opportunity wherein we can finally write our own history and chart our own fate as people and as a nation.

Through all these trials, we have held our head high. And like any other society, it is quite ironic that with the patience that we have shown we are still bound to a paradoxical situation wherein we are caught in the proverbial two roads diverging in a yellow wood, as the prophetic writer Robert Frost would put it.

One is a path known to us, the system of nationally elected officials and the presidential system; the economic provisions contained in the Fundamental Laws of the land; and the centralist structure of government.  These are systems all too familiar to us that most players are able to find, and stay, in the loopholes to pursue their vested interests.

The other path, the road not taken, is the path of amending all the pervading systems that oppress the very same people.  This path proposes to change the usual road that has become a tool to take advantage of the natural resiliency and patience of the Filipinos.
This paradoxical situation has led our country into utmost confusion, a crisis too great that it threatens to drive the nation into chaos.  The crisis has especially been disastrous in our efforts to improve our economy. At times that we can least afford to lose valuable time and resources, the squabbling has resulted in gridlocks and uncertainty in the market. Investors took a wait and see attitude and holding out valuable investments that could have helped our countrymen.  But what is new, the cynical among us has proffered. This condition of jumping from crisis to crisis has been the signature dance macabre for all our government these past 5 or 6 administrations. Our economists and even our political leaders have admitted that our present system of governance is not working for us. It has not only constantly failed to respond and resolve these series of predicament but in fact, the very same system of governance has produced these political-economic catastrophes.
A case in point: We were the number 2 economy in the Asian region in the early 50's, next only to Japan. Today, we rank somewhere between Vietnam and Bangladesh. We have not only stagnated but we have deteriorated. While our neighbors embraced the global markets and became competitive, we retrenched and hid behind outmoded protectionist policies - favoring a few local political-economic entrepreneurs.

It is time for change. As John F. Kennedy said: “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future”. We are in a crossroad. We need to decide the future of the country. Do we still persist in the same system that has failed us or move on to a new one that could provide us with a fresh start?

This was the reality that the President saw clearly in the early part of her regime. She then declared, long before the 2004 election that we have to restructure our system of governance that must necessarily alter our form of government and our republic.
The reason for my being here today is to lay before you the possible solutions to the problems which have been eating into our boy politic – charter change – a complete overhaul of our constitution which has nailed us to conditions and realities that no longer exist. The world has left us by. We need to change along with it. Our group, the Advocacy commission was created by the President under EO 495, all 15 men and women, all invited by President GMA, all volunteers, all advocating for:

- The liberalization of the economy and the lifting of restrictions to foreign ownership; - The shift from the bicameral presidential form to a unicameral parliamentary government; and - The shift from a unitary centralized system to autonomous territories and eventually towards a Federal republic of the Philippines.

These are the recommendations of the Consultative Commission (ConCom) that conducted nationwide consultations, dialogues and workshops all over the country late last year. President Arroyo has adopted these proposals and these are now the center of the raging nationwide debate.

 

The Advocacy Commission, Adcom, is mandated and tasked to inform and educate the people on these proposals for them to have an informed choice. 

People ask, why change the system, not just the people that govern it? A fair question, but we have seen that the system of government dictates the rules of the game in terms of political process. It also dictates the playing field where the politicians must play. In other words, changing the system directly affects changing the methods of selection and election of leaders. We are changing the field which will give us the opportunity for fresh leadership and new opportunities for new emerging leaders to serve this country.

Shift to Unicameral Parliamentary The proposal is to change from Presidential-Unitary to Parliamentary-Federal government. We are proposing this change because it increases accountability and responsibility of government officials and largely decentralize the functions of the present national government to the local governments. Decision making process has to be made at the lowest level as possible.It is a case in point that more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships which means negotiations and cooperation, and less of reliance on command, force or coercion. 

It also provides a robust constitutional system that anchors pluralist democracy, and that it enhances democratic participation. It has been argued that in smaller political units, individuals can participate more directly than in a monolithic unitary government.
It is more accountable since power is not divided, thus it is easier for voters to tell who is responsible for inaction. In addition, in a parliamentary system the chief executive (or prime minister) is often questioned by the legislature. Such a procedure would ensure that the chief executive is held to account and would act as a check on his power.

FEATURES OF A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM Fusion of the Executive and Legislative This is one where the executive and legislative powers are merged. The law making powers of the legislative body and the implementing power of the executive body are fused in an elective assembly of the citizen's representatives called the Parliament. This body enacts the laws and implements them. This is also called Party Government, where the majority political party dominates.

The President and the Prime Minister The head of the Parliament, the Prime Minister, is elected from among the members of the Parliament.

The President is the Head of State and is the symbol of a unified Philippines. The positions is largely ceremonial (In Britain- the Queen, in Australia, the Gov.General etc)
The Prime Minister is the Head of Government who has the responsibility to run the business of government with the help of his appointed Cabinet Ministers majority of whom are also members of Parliament (MPs).

The election of an MP to Prime Minister is largely the responsibility of the majority party or the coalition of parties who are the majority in Parliament.

It is believed that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and is often comprised of members of thelegislature. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system are comprised of members from different political parties, then stalemate can occur.

Vote of “No Confidence” The Prime Minister can be replaced by a "no confidence vote" or replaced by another member of the majority party or coalition. The terms of all MPs are five years.

Some other details in a parliamentary system which make it interesting are the following: the anti-turncoatism or anti-political butterfly feature; the proportional representation; and the governmental political subsidy.

Anti-political butterfly Since the parliamentary system is really a party government, the political party must clearly define its stand, platform, principles and ideology. A partyman must adhere to and understand therefore the tenets of the party and must defend and abide by them. An MP who goes against Party Line loses his position as MP, by law and booted out of parliament and remain an outcast. This prevents  politicians from jumping from political party to political party.

Proportional Representation In Europe, some members of parliament can be elected according to their respective share of party votes in a parliamentary election. This is called proportional representation. For example, if a party wins 60% of the total votes, 60% of the candidates named in the party list go into the parliament…likewise the opposition gets the remaining 40% in its own list.

Government Subsidy to Parties Again, in Europe, Government pays the party for every every vote it gets. This money is used by the party to run its affairs – including elections. This way, the winners owe the political parties his/her position, not a moneyed sponsor whom he will have to repay individually – the beginning of a corrupting relationship. 
The proposed system is advantageous for nations that are ethnically divided such as our selves. In the 1989 Lebanese Tariff Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to something that was more like a classical parliamentary system. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination.

Some scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of third world countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully transitioned to democracy. By contrast, no third world presidential system successfully transitioned to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the thirty countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, “All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly.”

CONCLUSION At this point, let me remind ourselves that aside from the two extraordinary gifts of resiliency and patience, the Filipinos, like any other human being, enjoy the gift of free will.  But this beautiful gift comes with one immense accountability, we have to choose knowledgably.

Also, let me remind you that what I have discussed with you today is not just a product of a day’s work nor of only one mind.  It has been put together based on a thorough consultation with people like you and me resilient…  patient…and free.

And so, let me reiterate our premises that the wind of change is blowing, let us embrace change for the future of our country. We are at a defining moment of our history, the point of divergence in the proverbial yellow road, we must decide what we want. And as we know it, only two things are a certainty in this world, one is change and the other is death.  We now have the paradoxical opportunity to choose between the two.  Thank you very much and Good afternoon once again to all.