"Let us all join in the discussion."
"Let us all join in the discussion."
The incoming Speaker of the House, Alan Peter Cayetano, has a lament, and it has to do with the tweet of a former colleague in the Senate and a dear friend, Ping Lacson.
After President Duterte announced that he would step in to fix the royal mess which was the speakership fight among several contenders, and declared his “Magellan Formula” as the solution to the mess, the endorsee, Cayetano made a proposal. He said that charter change, not necessarily to push for federalism, should tackle the lengthening of congressional terms from the current three years to perhaps four or five years even. He was pummeled with several reactions.
One of these was a tweet from Lacson last Thursday that said “Incoming House Speaker Cayetano’s longer term limit suggestion—starting on the wrong foot or delivering a wrong message. It’s another way of saying goodbye to cha-cha under the 18thCongress. I would say, country first before self-interest.”
A tweet is a post on Twitter, the quite popular social network service made more famous by Donald Trump, who keeps using it for his famous or infamous one-liners, depending on whether you like the guy or hate him.
Because Twitter allows messages of at most 280 characters, the message is called a “tweet,” which is similar to the chirp one hears from a bird.
Alan lamented Ping’s tweeted reaction to his proposal. “It’s not a political thing (but) a practical thing,” he said.
“While we will push for federalism, I think there is a way that the Senate will agree that we push either for four years, no term limit, or five years, (with a) four-term limit,” Cayetano added.
The present system allows members of the House as well as all local officials three-year terms with no more than three consecutive terms. Thus, we elect our congressmen along with local officials every three years, our senators for a term of six years, with 12 running intermittently every three years. And our president and his vice-president has a term of six years, with no re-election. That is what our 1987 Constitution provides.
Cayetano argues that this hinders development, citing both sustainability of plans and programs as well as the short gestation period for proper implementation.
“You are elected in May…take office in June. Yung six months you’re still getting organized. Kung kalaban mo naka-upo, ubos na yung pondo, di ba? Your budget starts in January…2020. That’s only one year…because (come) 2021, everyone’s thinking of 2022 (elections). Then the cycle starts again.”
Cayetano makes sense. As I have kept writing in this space, we have far too many elections in this politics-crazy country, and we elect far too many officials.
And if we come around to revising the present Constitution, I have always proposed having six-year terms for all officials, from barangay chiefs to mayors and governors, to congressmen and senators, to the president and his vice-president.
Further I have proposed that we do away with electing municipal and city councilors, as well as provincial board members. Let the mayors comprise the provincial board, and the barangay chairmen or captains the city and municipal councils. Where there are far too many barangays or municipalities, they make take turns sitting in the local legislatures every three years, or electing among themselves who should sit in the council.
Because of a multitude of “honorables” elected every three years, not only do taxpayers foot a large bill, they also get a gaggle of ambitious personalities who look after self-interest within a short time-line of three years.
In fact, one of the reasons the electorate chooses to keep dynasts in office is because they see the need for continuity in plans and programs. Of course self-interest also propels dynasts to perpetuate their species, but bad dynasts eventually get booted out. Good performers are rewarded with continued re-election. But need that be every three years?
Why not allow good leaders more time to plan, to get their policies supported by their constituents, to provide the wherewithal, and to implement these properly with utmost transparency? Would not six years be better than three years?
And if we want to curtail the perpetuation of political families and the proliferation of such dynasties, as has been our experience since 1987, isn’t the solution systemic? As in bringing back the two-party system where leaders choose who should lead, instead of the task being relegated to public opinion surveys, where celebrity status dwarfs effective and experienced leadership?
In any case, all these systemic changes have to be done, and most of them will require, beyond mere legislation, amending or revising the present Constitution which has become the framework for our political dysfunction for three decades now, more than an entire generation.
It is time to take stock, to learn lessons, and prescribe correct systemic solutions.
To which even Senator Ping Lacson would not object. Lacson is right, though, when he says Alan may be delivering the wrong message. He should have added that the timing is suspect. Cayetano sounded like he was pandering to his immediate constituency, currying favor among the 300, when he should be looking at the reaction of 105 million.
In any case, let us all join in the discussion; let us debate the merits and demerits of systemic change. Let this Congress be “disruptive,” as Cayetano likes to describe his 15-month stint. For disruption means change, and change is what this country needs, badly.
Let the tweets not be mere exercises in twitting proposals or looking for personal motives.
