Congressmen, senators fail to break impasse on Cha-cha
By Jodeal Cadacio
Reporter

CONGRESSMEN and senators remained deadlocked over changing the Constitution as Wednesday night’s dialogue between the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their clashing positions.
       In the dialogue, the Senate panel headed by Sen. Richard Gordon stood pat on its point the proposal should be considered an ordinary piece of legislation, thus it should go through the ordinary legislative process.
       The senators also contended that in the event the proposal is put to a vote, the House and the Senate should vote separately, in deference to the bicameral rule. Gordon said the Senate is willing to take up the Charter change issue as long as the House agrees that both houses should vote separately.
       Opposition to the stand of the House appeared not confined in the Senate with three former members of that chamber joining the mounting resistance to the proposed shift to a unicameral parliamentary setup.
       They warned the Senate not to give way to House leaders’ efforts to railroad the abolition of the existing presidential system where the people directly elect the country’s leaders.
       Appearing at the Kapihan sa Senado, former Senate President Ernesto Maceda warned that under a parliamentary setup where the prime minister is elected not by the people but only by the members of Parliament, it is possible that “only five taipans or five drug lords contributing P1 billion each can successfully install the prime minister of their choice . . . and that is most objectionable.”
       Former senator Tito Sotto disputed claims a unicameral parliament preferred by pro-Charter change congressmen led by Speaker Jose de Venecia is better than the present bicameral legislative body which provides a built-in check and balance mechanism. “All successful parliaments around the world, like those in Britain, Canada, and Australia, among others, are bicameral bodies.”
       Former senator Ernesto Herrera, seeking to drive home the point, cited the track record of the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives in handling scandals involving Malacañang Palace. “Just look at the performance of the Senate and the House; almost all the major scandals of the Arroyo administration were exposed and investigated in the Senate.”
       Herrera added this is because “the House is easily influenced by the Executive.”
       Lakas Rep. Constantino Jaraula of Cagayan de Oro City, head of the House panel, said that while the legislators failed to arrive at a consensus on the mode of amending the Charter, there were healthy discussions on other issues such as the need for economic amendments.
       He said the two panels agreed to meet again on June 8, the last day of session of Congress. He said the cordial atmosphere during the meeting is a positive sign that should embolden both parties to continue talking.
       Nationalist People’s Coalition Rep. Douglas Cagas of Davao del Sur, a staunch Charter change advocate who earlier advised against pursuing the dialogue with the senators, said, “Just as I expected, the dialogue is an exercise in futility. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by these senators.”
       Law professor Raul Lambino, also a member of the now defunct Consultative Constitutional Commission of President Arroyo, claimed the shift to a parliamentary system would “definitely pave the way for improved and cleaner governance.”
       Citing a World Bank study titled “Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter,” Lambino said parliamentary forms of government worldwide “correspond with reduced corruption.”
       “Compared to a presidential system, there is absolutely greater political accountability in a parliamentary regime,” Lambino pointed out. But he said nothing about the possible, even probable, coopting of Parliament by a cartel of the very rich or a syndicate of international criminals as seen by Herrera. With B. Fernandez