In recent months, a national consensus for amending the 1987 Constitution has been forming. Such a result should not be all that surprising.

Twice in the last 20 years, concerned Filipinos backed up by the Armed Forces and National Police have had to intervene directly in governance taking upon themselves the task of replacing first, a president perceived to be oppressive and then, second, another perceived to be corrupt risking constitutional crisis, civil conflict, and even bloody violence in the process. The AFP and the PNP have been most unfairly the objects of a constant tug-of-war by various groups, instead of being kept united and undisturbed to effectively protect public safety and our national integrity.

And because our political parties have been formed around personalities, sheer popularity and not competence, training, and experience to lead in a principled way has become the winningest qualification for public office.

Those who say that constitutional change can wait ignore the urgency of the need for a new beginning. More and more, our people realize that it is not only leaders but the political system itself that is responsible for our having fallen behind our neighbors in the world’s fastest-growing region, the Asia-Pacific. And this decline in the quality of our governance has resulted in a growing lack of confidence in the Philippine future.

Already, more than nine million Filipinos have "exiled" themselves to work in more than 130 foreign countries. Our OFWs have become dispersed to more countries than even the Jews were, since the Middle Ages and many more everyday vote with their feet and travel visas.

The protectionist provisions in our Constitution have operated to choke the flow of foreign direct investments (FDI) into our economy. Even during my Presidency which was a period of relatively high growth and good credit ratings our country received less than 6 percent of the total FDI that went into the ASEAN member-countries. It is investors both foreign and local who create jobs. But Filipino business-people cannot create all the jobs, because they lack capital.

Today, the only way to get people out of poverty permanently is to give them jobs: any other solution is merely palliative. UP Professor (Dr.) Arsenio Balisacan, President of the Human Development Network, Philippines, notes that "the main reason for relatively low growth in the Philippines is primarily the short duration of growth and slowness of growth." Dr. Balisacan figures that, if we are to significantly reduce mass poverty, we need to grow over these next 1012 years by a minimum 7 percent annually. This is also the wellpublicized advice of the Asian Development Bank for "backsliding" countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

And if we are to grow by 7 percent, experts say we need to invest at least 30 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP) every year. Unfortunately, Filipinos save at best only 19 percent of our GDP. In ASEAN, the savings rate is at 31 percent on average. Since we need to invest 30 percent of GDP, but save only 19 percent on average, we have a yearly financing gap that is equal to 11 percent of GDP. In 2000, that gap was equivalent to about US.4 billion. Usually, countries could bridge this gap by borrowing. But the gap was just too great since the FDI in that particular year was only US.3 billion.

Since late 1991, I believed honestly that no less than a transformation to the parliamentary mode has become critical. I also have sought the structural reform of our electoral system.

First, the boom-bust nature of our presidential form. The Malolos Congress of the first Philippine Republic had chosen the parliamentary system based on the European model. Later, we borrowed the presidential system of the Americans during the Commonwealth period, and then embraced it since winning back our independence from the US Yet, our circumstances have always been far different from those of the Americans. In trying to establish liberal democratic government over a vast, diverse society the American Founding Fathers deliberately designed their Constitution to avoid a strong central government because of "states rights." This they managed by dividing government’s powers: horizontally between the federal government and the constituent states; and vertically among the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The presidential system has obviously worked well for the Americans. In our own experience, however, this elaborate system of checks andbalance has produced, more often than not, administrative and political gridlock. (Consider, for instance, the infighting in our Congress which has yet to pass the 2006 budget.)

Within the context of our highly personalized system, domestic policy-making has largely become a game with no winners in which the President, the two Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court all hold veto powers against each other.

The lack of accountability in the presidential system and its institutional rigidity have been another plague on our politics. Since the President is accountable directly to the electorate, he/she is in reality answerable to no one the moment he/she gets elected. And, as we saw in 2000-2001, a President can even defy public opinion with impunity because the fixed presidential term also makes impeachment tremendously difficult.

Parliamentary government negates most of these problems simply by fusing the Legislature and the Executive being responsible for passing laws and levying taxes, while fulfilling the essential function of providing the political personnel for government. The system also enables young legislators who have the potential for national and international leadership to experience the executive management of government agencies, departments and ministries. Thus, merit and capacity become the main determinants for the election of leaders not just survey ratings and popularity. The moment the Government loses Parliament’s confidence, it is obliged to resign to enable a new government to be formed.

The parliamentary system will enable our people to replace an oppressive, corrupt and/or non-performing Chief Executive democratically and smoothly without risking deep political schisms; the constant pushand-pull upon our soldiers, policemen, veterans and armed services; and even bloody civil war.

The modernization of the electoral process I see as the second key reform our political system needs. Indeed, the prospect of honest, orderly, peaceful elections (HO-P-E) which are credible to the people might start off a virtuous cycle by reducing the influence of dynastic families and criminal syndicates in elections, and by encouraging bright, young politicians to challenge the leadership of LGUs controlled by political machines. Electoral reform might just break the logjam of corruption that blocks the flow of good governance.

Reforming the electoral process will be all the more significant if it is taken together with the shift to the parliamentary system. But whether we go through with Charter change or not, the modernization of our electoral process its computerization, simplification, and timeliness is a reform we can no longer put off. Most urgently, we must establish a truly autonomous Commission on Elections one vested with as much majesty and prestige as that which dignifies the Supreme Court. In Mexico, it was mainly structural electoral reform that, in the year 2000, ended 71 years of one-party rule.

Like any other self-respecting democracy, ours is equipped with the usual majority and opposition parties. But Philippine political parties do not govern. It is super-star politicians who do. Charter change would give political parties a more central role because parliamentary government is party government. The "confidence requirement" built into the parliamentary system creates a strong incentive for the ruling party to maintain party discipline and individual righteousness and above all, to govern capably in accordance with the national, not vested, interests.

Raising political capacity means increasing the credibility of Government and the efficiency of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the National Police and the Judiciary. It also means setting high standards of personal integrity, efficiency, and accountability for those who manage the affairs of the State. A democratic government is not compelled to be weak; indeed, a weak government can only dissipate democracy by failing to promulgate correct strategic policies and carry them out. Weak government, let us never forget, is the real breeding ground of coups, insurgencies, rebellions and revolutions.

Parliamentary government will not be an instant political cure-all, neither a magic economic silver-bullet. It is unlikely to solve quickly our deep-rooted problems of mass poverty, political disunity and unequal access to political power. We will still need good, consistent leadership to make Philippine democracy work for the common tao leaders with a strong commitment to the national interest.

Democracy must also listen and attend to what ordinary people want because it is they who pay the price of political fragmentation and economic non-performance. In reality, no democracy is ever fully completed. In its fullest sense, democracy will always be a work in progress and an ideal to be attained only through the combined effort of all. Our most urgent need is for a Constitution that will serve responsively and flexibly the need to modernize our institutions, to uplift our economy, to eliminate mass poverty, to harmonize our social relationships, to regain a place of respect in the community of nations a position which we once occupied and most of all, to empower common Filipinos to achieve a better future.

Clearly, without reforming our institutions of governance, we will be unable to accomplish much. Meantime, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos continue to seek better opportunities elsewhere, while tens of millions who cannot afford to leave continue to suffer, as our beloved Philippines continues on its decline. Waiting for Cha-cha and the year 2010 only prolongs their agony.