“Great necessities call out great virtues.” — Abigail Adams

The pursuit of constitutional changes and parliamentarism, as a calculated risk alternative to the present political system, must be continued with more determination and vigor.

With due respect to former President Corazon Aquino who had obstinately resisted any attempt at tampering with the 1987 Constitution, or sometimes fondly called the “Cory Constitution,” the Filipino people are paying the price of indifference and procrastination while the nation retrogresses.

A tale of two scenarios suffices to illustrate the dilemma that the country faces as it approaches 2010. It will define the direction and fate of this republic in the years to come.

On the one hand, without constitutional revision and amendments, the elections of 2010 will be more of the same.

That is, there will be uncontrolled spending, manipulations of votes, with or without partial automation, violence, massive vote-buying, coercion, controlled voting of the barangay level, and widespread use of jueteng and narco money.

With the present political system, the nation cannot expect a new type of leadership, or independence from vested interests, or meddling by major religious denominations.

To add insult to injury, elected and appointive public officials are not, in one sense, answerable or accountable to the people for their acts and behavior until the next electoral campaign, or three, or six years later.

The possible remedy is impeachment which process is not only tedious but also divisive.

On the other hand, with constitutional changes, and the introduction of the parliamentary form of government, the prime minister, or chief executive, is chosen by members of the ruling political party, or their coalition partners, to form and head a Cabinet of equally elected members of parliament who report regularly to parliament, and are subjected to scrutiny and questions on a daily basis by the watchful public.

While there is no term limits to re-election of members, snap elections can be called at anytime if the incumbent government has lost favor with the members or the public.

Thus, for example, the ZTE-NBN scandal, the North Rail scandal, the Bubby Dacer double murder, multimillion peso “ponzi” scams, and the gala dinner in expensive New York, would have inevitably prompted (1) parliamentary inquiries; (2) calls for “vote of NO confidence” in the government; and (3) if found warranted and outvoted, the PM and his Cabinet would invariably resign “en masse”, and new elections are immediately scheduled.

It goes without saying that there are equally many more vital provisions and variations in the two political systems which are not the object of this piece.

If truth be told, if the politicians were not so obsessed with the notion that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was bent on extending her term and retaining power, and the parliamentary form was in place, all the scandals associated with her watch may not have prospered, and if they did, her government would have fallen much earlier, and she would not have lasted for nine years.

Last, the fear of politicians that PGMA may become prime minister would have been for naught, and the nation would have been spared from unnecessary turmoil.

When all is said and done, the price of our indifference, the speculative and unfounded fears of our politicians, and the subservience to vested and foreign interests are our own undoing.

Nonetheless, hope springs eternal.

You be the judge. (For comments and views, please e-mail: chaff_fromthegrain@yahoo.com.ph)