October 10, 2003, The Philippine Star, Op-Ed, Worth experimenting - A law each day (Keeps Trouble Away), by Jose C. Sison,

October 10, 2003, The Philippine Star, Op-Ed, Worth experimenting - A law each day (Keeps Trouble Away), by Jose C. Sison,

People deserve the kind of government they have. This is a universally accepted truism based on the premise that such government is the people’s choice expressed every elections through the exercise of the right to vote. Mistakes in choices are grounds to boot the regime out of power but they have to wait till the next elections to do so. In the Philippines, this truism is not applicable. Here the people ousts regimes mistakenly placed in power just like what happened during EDSA 2. More than anything else, this second people power uprising is the best proof that our electoral process is flawed and marred by so many irregularities; that the electors are not fully informed and properly educated in making the right choices such that the elected government is not what they really deserve.

Over half a century since we were given the sovereign power to govern ourselves as a democratic and republican State under a Presidential system with three separate and independent branches consisting of the bicameral Congress, the Executive Department and the Judiciary, we have not attained some truly significant stride in nation building. Our neighbors have outpaced us in every aspect of life and we remain the basket case of Asia. Our dismal state of stagnancy and even backwardness unavoidably led to the growing perception that there must be something wrong with our system of government triggering proposals to change it from the present Presidential to Parliamentary or any other modified form. Yet the forces of status quo were quick to shoot them down with a curt "it-is-the people-running-the system-not-the-system" answer.

Admittedly, the main cause of most of our present problems and hardships is not our system of government but those who are running it. We have seen however that in our kind of flawed election, putting the most competent and dedicated person into public office is like driving a square peg into a round hole. Besides, due to poverty and ignorance, the overwhelming majority of our voters continue to be swayed not by the worth of the candidates’ program of government (since there are none anyway) but by the amount of their momentary financial assistance or their popular appeal either as sports heroes or movie celebrities or commercial models. The quality of our present crop of public officials is but a reflection of the kind of voters who elected them.

So as we approach the next elections, we will be facing the same prospect of having more of the same people running the same system of government. This hopeless scenario somehow makes any change like a whiff of fresh air reinvigorating peoples’ expectation of a brighter tomorrow. In our present situation, there is no harm anymore in trying untested alternatives, regardless of the pros and cons, the hopes and fears they entail.

Foremost among these changes is the proposal to shift from the present Presidential to Parliamentary system with a unicameral body. This proposal is worth trying not because of its merits but precisely because of the dismaying reality that there seems to be no way to change the kind of people running our government through an election where billions of pesos are wasted. Breaking away from the status quo rather than preserving it, seems to be more sensible as it has come to a point where we have nothing to lose anymore.

Another proposal worth looking into, which I recently heard being tossed around, is the adoption of the American way in choosing the Head of State. Since our Presidential System is practically imported from the USA, we should have also brought in their method of electing the President and Vice President through a body of electors chosen in every State (in our case, every Province or Region), known as the Electoral College. As proven in their presidential elections, this electoral body is the best antidote to prevent the choice of a leader from degenerating into a popularity contest.

Of course, to adopt any of these proposals, we have to change the charter (cha-cha). The good news is that most of our leaders are now convinced that to cha-cha is necessary. They only differ on when and how to cha-cha. But with time running out, and facing the ominous prospects of an election that is not reflective of the peoples’ will, despite the much vaunted computerization, doing the cha-cha before that election seems to be extremely urgent to avoid a disaster. And this could be done only by Congress convening as a Constituent Assembly. I hope our leaders could appreciate this urgency.