A Call For A New Beginning

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Allow me first to thank you for your invitation to speak in this luncheon program. Your invitation does honor to me, given the prestige of your organization and the time and circumstances under which we come together. Although my personal preference is to shy away from the limelight and enjoy the solitude of private life, I can not decline a call, like yours, to participate in the discussion of public issues. But more than that, as a member of the Bar, I can not resist the pleasure ofaz your company, nor can I forego a free lunch like what I have just had, especially now that I am without a job.

Levity aside, I am certain that we have many things to talk about. For instance, there is a growing public clamor to re-examine our present political structure. Many believe that the present Constitution is a deficient and inadequate tool to govern the nation. And I am inclined to agree with them. And so, I would like to discuss this with you today.

We can no longer ignore the country's deep social malaise. Mindanao continues to be a place of disorder. The unsettled conflict with the MNLF and the MILF threatens to escalate into a major internal war. The Abu Sayyaf problem is now full blown. It has become more muddled, to the point of dividing the nation further, because of the entry of American troops in the effort to quell the criminal activities of the Abu Sayyaf.

In the Netherlands, negotiations between the government and the CCP-NPA-NDF have been going on to settle the communist insurgency. But, no tangible result has yet been produced to assure us of a lasting peace.

Criminality has reached a critical level. Kidnappings, carnappings, robberies, sale of prohibited drugs, thefts of public funds, murders, rapes, and all kinds of corruption and fraudulent activities, both public and private, are rampant. They seem to be beyond the government's capacity to control.

The country's economy has become anemic. Many companies have closed down or have reduced their operations. Millions of our people are without work. Poverty is very evident. One sees it in every slum across the nation. One sees it in the sunken eyes, on the emaciated and skinny faces, of children in many wretched dwellings in the country.

The nation is restive. The many who are poor reel under the heavy grind of daily living. Parents are haunted by the specter of scarcity and disease. They fear for the safety and future of their children.

In the streets, many give vent to their anger. They march to denounce what they consider to be the criminal neglect of government to provide for their needs or to mitigate their miserable condition.

There is reason to be apprehensive. In less than two decades, our country has been battered by two dangerous social upheavals. Although these involved very minimal violence and bloodshed, both resulted in the removal of two incumbent presidents from their seat of power. Both caused a very wide crack in the unity and cohesion of the people.

But, more disturbing and alarming was the involvement of the military and the police. In both cases, the men in uniform decided the outcome. Against the command of the Constitution, they openly engaged in purely partisan political activity. They defied the Constitution, which, by their oath, they have sworn to defend and protect.

The present administration is unstable. It is unsure in its actions and direction. It is not in full control of the country's political and social situation. It acts warily because of certain vested groups.

It has to heed the military, the police, the Catholic Church, the other Christian groups, the Makati Business Club, and the so-called civil society. These were its partners and cohorts in grabbing political power from the administration that preceded it. These special interest groups very likely expect to be consulted on all important and major decisions.

Because of this, the administration, whether fairly or unfairly, is perceived to be in disarray, insecure, and jittery. It is, in fact, paranoid. It displays lack of boldness, determination, and conviction in dealing decisively with national problems. This sense of paranoia and want of confidence probably stems from its awareness that its right to govern has not come from the common consent of the people. As Thomas Carlyle said, "Woe to him who claims obedience when it is not due. Woe to him that refuses it when it is."

As a consequence, the government takes legal short cuts in the handling of critical national issues. A tendency to veer from a government by law to a government by man is very evident. And this is aggravated by the intrusion of politics and influence in the dispensation of justice, especially in the resolution of competing rights. A perception is now prevalent, whether fair or undeserved, that our courts have become less than a reliable source of impartial justice.

With human discretion abundantly employed in governance, expediency is more cherished than reason. Legal rules are conveniently set aside. They are a hindrance. They are arcane and esoteric. They are a source of delay. It is not uncommon to hear from supposedly enlightened citizens, who ought to know better, that the end justifies the means. To these citizens, never mind the Constitution! Never mind legalities! Solve the problem! That is the important and overriding consideration. That is the end all and be all. Use any means to achieve the desired end, be they lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral. This kind of impatience presents a clear and present danger to our civil liberties.

We hear also these days repeated calls for the use of non-constitutional methods (such as coup d'etat, military intervention, and Edsa type people power) to solve our national ills. These calls are even discussed and debated openly in the media. There is no attempt to dissemble, to conceal, or to be secretive about it. This suggests the growing alienation and ill will of the people. And here lies the danger. Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, said, "The nature of things does not madden us: only ill will does."

If we really desire a fitting, tangible, and effective solution to our present national condition, we must go to the very heart of the problem. With deliberateness and care, we must re-examine the Constitution and revise it if we find a need to do so, which I think we will.

Some expressed a strong opposition to any effort to revise the Constitution. This negative attitude is rooted in the ambition of some politicians for higher political position and power. Influential and entrenched special interest groups are also against changes in the Constitution because of their desire to preserve their favored position, status, and privilege.

Now, should we let the status quo to remain and allow the further retrogression of the country simply because of some politicians and our reluctance to tangle with the selfish interest of a privileged and powerful, but callous, few?

Or should we now summon our courage, mobilize the collective will and make the necessary adjustments in the Constitution so that the interest of the country and the people is promoted and served? Andres Bonifacio said, "The people is all; all is the people."

If we do not wish to be overtaken by events, what we must do is clear. The time to revise the Constitution has come. The responsibility can no longer be avoided. There is an urgency to be met.

To continue with our Hamlet-like procrastination is fraught with risk. Our business-as-usual attitude will likely leave us no option but to follow the rough and bloody road to revolutionary change. Let us act now when peaceful and legal methods to change the Constitution are still adequate and available.

The present Constitution is not a perfect document. It is not the Word of God. It was the work of fallible and mortal human beings, with passions, biases, and prejudices of their own.

As we all know, the people did not choose the framers of the present Constitution. The then incumbent president handpicked them. I grant their noble intentions. But, it was highly possible they were unable to mirror or capture the real aspirations of the people. I may even agree that they were the best, the brightest, and the most experienced to frame the Constitution. Nevertheless, they were just as human and fallible as we all are.

Evidently, they focused more on what they saw then as the excesses of a period in our history, which had just passed out of existence. I do not believe they foresaw or anticipated the consequences and problems that the provisions they had made thereafter created in our political and social life.

Now we have the experience. We gathered this from a decade and a half of actual application of the present Constitution. We know now that the Constitution and the institutions it created are flawed. This is not a product of guessing or wild imaginings. No one can now insist, except, perhaps, a fool or a rabid believer, that the Constitution is a perfect document.

There is apprehension that revising the Constitution will cost the nation much. But, cost should bother us the least. Cost should not impede us in doing what is to be done imperatively, especially when that involves the well being and survival of our country. Even lives - the most precious of our possessions - are to be sacrificed when required to serve and protect the freedom and happiness of our people.

If we could waste an enormous sum of public money for useless projects like the Borloloy Building and the white elephant EXPO 2000, why should we refuse to spend a couple of billions of our cheapened money to arrest our growing decadence? That would be a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish decision, which would be most unfortunate for the country.

Some say that any attempt to revise the Constitution will widen the disunity in the country. That should be expected.

Remember that we are a democratic republican state. As such, the spirit of free inquiry and debate is an essential element of our political system. Everything is open to discussion. No proposition is left unexamined. And everyone, whether he has any interest or not, is free to speak his mind. Invariably, the decision is rendered with finality through a division of the house.

That is done in every corporate boardroom. That is done in every deliberative assembly. That is done in every meeting where a decision has to be made. That is done in the Cabinet. That is done in both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court does it. Other collegial bodies in the government do it. The media do it almost always on major national issues.

Divisiveness then is not a proper argument to thwart a prudent revision of the Constitution. It is but a habitual assertion of objectors to constitutional modernization.

What are the changes that ought to be made in the Constitution? There are many areas that require re-examination. Let me identify some of them.

First is whether we should continue with the presidential form of government, or whether we should adopt a parliamentary form, like some of the more advanced and affluent countries in Southeast Asia.

Second is whether we should maintain a bicameral legislature, or adopt a unicameral lawmaking body. If we maintain a bicameral legislature, whether we should continue to elect senators nationally or elect them regionally.

Third is whether we should continue the present term limits of elective public officials, or whether we should alter them, or even consider letting the people decide how long elective public officials should remain in office.

Fourth is whether we should maintain the present frequency of national and local elections, or whether we should change it to make our electoral system more efficient and less expensive both for the candidates and the nation.

Fifth is whether we should maintain the multi-party system, or whether we should revert to the two-party system under the 1935 Constitution.

Sixth is whether we should maintain the nationalization of the police service, or whether we should revert to the system we had before the nationalization, given the prevailing condition of law and order in the country.

Seventh is to clarify the meaning of the constitutional role of the military as "the protector of the people and the State." This role has created a dangerous idea that the military has been given a special prerogative to decide the circumstances under which it can intervene in our national affairs as "the protector of the people and the State." This is a carte blanche that, in my opinion, may bring us dire and unimaginable possibilities.

Eighth is whether we should maintain the present power and jurisdiction of the Commission on Appointments, or whether we should revert to the system under the 1935 Constitution. The present system abets corruption in government.

Ninth is whether we should reconstruct the present judicial system and make it more attuned to the demands of a fair, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of civil and criminal cases, without prejudice to the requirements of due process, the independence of the judiciary, and the interest and welfare of society.

Finally, we should re-examine the economic provisions of the Constitution and identify the areas that ought to be reserved and preserved for our people, and the areas where we would welcome foreign participation.

The central structure of our government is the presidential system. It is the one that desperately needs a re-examination. We have been operating under it since the birth of the republic. Its failure to relieve the country from the crushing grip of poverty has provoked a very serious doubt and concern about it. So, let me focus my attention to this area of the Constitution.

The presidential system is the form of government with which we are most familiar. It is the only system of government we have used. The 1973 Constitution attempted to introduce to the country the parliamentary system, but the attempt was never fully pursued. Intervening events and lack of political will and sincerity to see it through were responsible for the lack of success.

Although the 1973 Constitution was adopted and ratified by the people, the then incumbent president, having declared martial law near the end of 1972, decided to assume the positions both of president and prime minister, without a parliament.

When the parliament was finally elected and constituted in 1978, it was a parliament only in name. In substance and in actual, practical operation, the so-called parliament was not a parliament at all. True, President Marcos gave up later on his position as Prime Minister, but he, nevertheless, retained his lawmaking powers. And these were far superior to those of parliament. For instance, he had Amendment No. 6, which gave him the power to legislate on a broad range of subjects.

This was the extent of our "experience" in parliamentary government. This so-called "experience" is used to support the claim that parliamentary government has been a failure in the Philippines. Ergo, parliamentary government is not suited for us. This is, of course, an absolute fallacy.

In 1981, the Constitution was amended to return us back, once more, to the old presidential system. This effectively obliterated the country's attempt to have a real parliamentary system.

We have a long and deep emotional attachment to the presidential system. Many of us, without realizing its drawback, believe that it is the only system suited for our country. This is true even among the well-educated members of our society.

But, the reverse is probably closer to the truth. Our national experience strongly indicates that the system has failed to work for us. True, the presidential system appears to have been a success in the United States. But, that success seems not to have been realized in the case of other countries that adopted it. Incidentally, even in America, scholars are beginning to doubt its supposed success in the United States.

Our experiment with the presidential system has been long. We have been at it for more than a hundred years now, since the time of General Emilio Aguinaldo. And what have we accomplished under it? In relative terms, not much!

If we compare ourselves with our neighbors, we have achieved very little, indeed. We have not progressed as fast and as much as many of our neighbors in Southeast and Northeast Asia did over a shorter period under a parliamentary system.

Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, and now Vietnam and the People's Republic of China are ready and good examples. These states - emerging from colonialism as independent countries after World War II - advanced faster than we ever did. They have attained greater progress and higher degree of modernity in a fewer decades under the parliamentary system than what we have accomplished over a much longer period under the presidential system.

If we continue as we are, there is no assurance that the presidential system is dependable enough to provide us with the desired political tool to solve our deeply rooted national problems.

Claro M. Recto was the first to indicate this. If you recall, Recto was the president of the 1934 constitutional convention that introduced the presidential system to us. His frustration with the presidential system appeared in the Manila Times Magazine issue of February 1947. To him, the presidential system "can make fools of all the people, all the time - and make fools of themselves for four years." The presidential system, according to him, is "a government of the incompetent by the irresponsible."

His remarks indicated undoubtedly his dislike for the presidential system. His disillusion was probably a product of his own personal experience as a member of the executive branch and as a longtime former legislator.

Indeed, in a presidential system, the members of the Cabinet, who are not elected, possess more absolute powers than the members of Congress do. They exercise with the president complete control of the government. They spend public funds, enforce the laws, and implement policies without any direct responsibility to the people and without the participation of congressional members who appropriated the public funds and who approved the laws and policies being enforced and implemented.

What then are the notable defects of the presidential system? The first has to do with the choosing process. After Edsa I, we have seen that we can no longer be sure that only the truly qualified for the office will run, or that only the best of those who will run will be chosen. The increase in the number of voters has further aggravated this problem. An improvement in the educational level of our voters has not enhanced the political maturity and reliability of the electorate either.

On the other hand, a predominantly impoverished electorate with a very low level of intellectual sophistication can easily develop a mania for candidates whose best qualities qualify them for everything else except public office.

The second problem is the number of voters that must elect the president. I do not think we shall ever again see in this country a president elected by a majority of the voters. This is our experience during the last two elections for president after the first Edsa Revolution. The winners, in both cases, were simply elected by a mere plurality of the national votes.

A majority of the voters is supposed to elect a president. But, we adopted a multi-party system, and this led to a multiple number of presidential candidates. Consequently, a majority vote is no longer possible or even necessary to elect a president.

This is true because, despite the multiple number of presidential candidates, the winner is elected in just one balloting. To declare a winner, what is needed is merely a plurality of votes. There is no necessity for another balloting to insure majority votes for the elected president. In other countries, electing a president by a mere plurality of votes is not allowed. Normally, a run-off election is a required feature of their electoral process.

Because of this, we will always have a president who does not represent the majority will of the nation. And so, the elected president has no clear mandate from the people to govern. This, in my view, seriously impairs his personal confidence, his legitimacy, and his stability as a leader to manage the government and to rule the country. Probably, this is the reason for the insecurities and troubles of our post-Edsa-1986-presidents.

The third defect of the Constitution refers to the protection of the interest of the participants in the elections. Every politician in this land knows that political parties and candidates for elective public office are effectively divested of their right to be represented in the electoral boards - the Board of Registration, the Board of Inspectors, and the Board of Canvassers. This was the result of a direct ban in the Constitution. Besides, with so many political parties and candidates, it is impossible to accommodate everyone in the electoral boards.

There is no way, therefore, for political parties and candidates to protect directly and fully their interests during elections. They have to rely solely on the goodness, fairness, honesty, probity, and public spirit of the Commission on Elections.

The Commission on Elections, the sole implementor of our electoral system, is supposed to be a non-partisan organization. The fervent wish is for it to act with utmost impartiality and reliability during elections. The expectation is for it to protect the interest of everyone without favoritism. But, the reality is different. The Commission on Elections is a human institution. Its best intentions are not always translated into actual honest decisions and actions during elections.

Before the present Constitution, the two major political parties in the country were represented in the electoral boards. Admittedly, that right, when it existed under the old system, did not always adequately protect the political parties during elections. But what was inadequate then is now lost forever under the present Constitution.

The fourth problem involves the expenses in running for president. As we know, a national constituency must elect a president. Therefore, a presidential candidate must protect his votes in every precinct across the land. The money required for that purpose is, indeed, exceedingly large and utterly senseless.

Even now, when 2004 is still two years away, there are already whispers about the jolting amount being raised for a potential candidate for the top post. These whispers are given credence because of such reported CODE-NGO sale of zero bonds, the JANCOM alleged overpricing of its garbage contract by P337 billion in twenty-five years, and the supposed impending payment of the Government's P6.5 billion obligation to the SOCIETE GENERALE D'SURVEILLANCE. Of course, these scandals will not be the last to attract our attention, given the rising heat of competition for political power in the country.

In circa 1998, a serious presidential contender was predicted to spend, at least P2,000,000,000.00, for his election. This was to land a job that would pay him P693,000.00 per annum or P4,158,000.00 for six years. Two billion pesos are certainly a large sum of money. It is the equivalent salaries of the office for 2,886 years!

No matter who the president elect is, he will probably devote a portion of his time recovering his election expenses and paying his political debts. This should explain why a high incidence of corruption corrodes the political totem pole of the country. For no rational person will spend P2,000,000,000.00, without recovering it back.

The fifth point is the issue of accountability. How is the president being made accountable to the people while in office? How can his acts and decisions be made truly open and transparent to the public?

As president, he becomes the head of state, the head of the government, the chief executive of Philippines, Inc., the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, and the number one police officer of the country. His powers are really awesome. Many regard him more powerful than the President of the United States.

He knows that once in office, he cannot be divested legally of his position, except through his own voluntary resignation, or his permanent disability to discharge the functions of the presidency, or his removal by impeachment, or his death. Verily, he can manipulate events, situations, and incidents, and use his awesome powers to ward off unwelcome scrutiny from a vigilant opposition, or from a hostile and alert media, or from the antagonistic passion of an aroused public.

He can decide, to the utter dismay of the people, to play deaf, dumb, and blind to the most outrageous excesses. Or what is worse, he can commit the excesses himself. Should that happen, the people would have no recourse but to use force, the ultimo ratio, and act directly against him. This was what happened in the so-called Edsa phenomena.

The sixth element to consider is the president's ability to govern. For him to perform his job well, he must have the full support and cooperation of the various organs of government. This is easier said than done. From experience under the presidential system, more often than not, this is not what happens. The three coordinate and coequal branches of government often tend to be more concerned with their being coequal with separate powers than with their being coordinate and integral parts of a government whose main task is to pursue common national goals.

We saw how the executive and the legislative branches of the government were locked in acrimonious conflict over policy. We saw how they sometimes acted at cross-purposes. This happened even though men and women from the same political party ran both the executive and the legislative branches. Between these two branches, there exists a nearly permanent political tension that unduly obstructs or delays decisive and unified official action on vital national issues.

The seventh point I want to make refers to the tenure of the president. The Constitution gives the president a fixed term of six years. He can not be dispossessed of his office before the end of his term unless he voluntarily resigns, or he is removed through impeachment, or he becomes permanently disabled to discharge his functions, or he dies.

In a country where no one voluntarily resigns, even for the most inexcusable and unmitigated reason, the people are doomed to suffer for six years when the electorate err in choosing a president that is corrupt, inept, unfit, inutile, selfish, false, faithless, and deceitful. In that event, there is no speedy or adequate relief, except through people power with the active support of the military and the police.

Such a practice, where the military and the police get involve in purely partisan activity, poses a mortal danger to the nation. The role of the military as "the protector of the people and the state" - combined with the increasing hardship, the growing impatience, and the ugly mood of the citizenry - presents dreadful possibilities for our society. It is not preposterous to say that unless we take concrete measures to obviate it, we may lose our freedom and democratic tradition.

The eighth point to consider is the fitness of the elected leader. In a presidential system, a demagogue has a better chance of getting elected president than a democrat. Why? For the simple reason that the entire national electorate elects the president. A majority of the electorate may not really have enough knowledge of the needed skills to be president. They may not even be familiar with the abilities, characters, and backgrounds of the men and women seeking the office.

As a consequence, the mediocre, the meretricious is often more acceptable to the electorate than the meritorious. Popularity becomes a paramount basis for candidate's fitness for the office than ability and character. It is not surprising, therefore, to see a popular incompetent being succeeded by a more popular incompetent. This has been our experience.

Perhaps, no one can better say it than Walter Bagehot who, in his famous book The English Constitution, said that the presidential system is vastly inferior to the parliamentary system in choosing the best leaders. According to him, sometimes the presidential system produces a great president. But, that is like winning a lottery, he said. Winning a lottery, he added, is no argument in favor of a lottery.

In a study made in 1992, Professor Fred Riggs of the University of Hawaii concluded that presidential systems are irreformable. Their structures, according to him, are fundamentally defective.

Indubitably, the presidential system is defective. In our case, this defect is made more extreme because of corrupt, inept, faithless, and deceitful leaders. We must, therefore, harness our sense of patriotism, political purpose, courage, and sagacity and adopt a parliamentary form of government. Only through such a determined and radical change can we expect a more principled politics, establish a more effective, efficient, and responsive government, and enlist better men and women for public office. We need a well organized, dedicated, competent, and enlightened leadership to revive and strengthen the economy, to rapidly transform and modernize our political, economic, and social orders, and to enable the country to regain her status and prestige as a worthy member of the community of nations.

With our sad experience with people power, the parliamentary system is the most suited for our purposes. This system will eliminate many of the pitfalls, defects, and weaknesses of the presidential system.

In a parliamentary system, elections will not exhaust the energies and resources of the nation to produce a suitable leader. Elections will only exhaust the energies and resources of political parties. The political parties are the ones responsible to search, recruit, and install qualified, capable, good men and women to manage the government. They will have to, if they want to be relevant players in the political activities of the society. They will have to have the right men and women to articulate and implement their party platforms, and to provide a good government for the people.

Because elections of members of parliament will be done in smaller geographical areas, like the congressional districts, with relatively lesser number of voters, the elections will be easier to administer.

The elections of a national leader will be cheaper and less dishonest than now. No one, for instance, will have to spend P2,000,000,000.00 to get a P693,000.00-a-year job. Thus, the influence of special interest groups will be minimized.

The level of violence during elections, with the consequent disruption of the peace in the country, will be reduced.

The members of parliament will choose the Prime Minister. They will also have, on a simple no-confidence motion, the power to remove him. His longevity in office will depend on his trustworthiness, on his individual skill and ability to lead, and on his capacity to formulate and adopt, to explain and communicate, and to implement sound programs, policies, and decisions for the people.

Governance will be transparent and responsive to public need. Accountability and responsibility to the people and to the parliament will be direct and immediate. Passing the buck or blame to others for failures will be minimized, if not eliminated.

This will spare the country and the people the need to mount, now and then, an Edsa people power to restore decency, rectitude, and competence in government or to effect a peaceful and desirable alteration of a severely damaged and politically unwanted leadership.

A parliamentary government is concededly more efficient and effective than a presidential government. In a parliamentary government, there is a fusion of the executive and the legislative. The members of the Cabinet are largely drawn from and continue to be members of parliament. They join and participate in the enactment of laws. They implement the laws with the participation and cooperation of parliament. Hence, the energies of government are focused. Competition between the executive and the legislative for recognition and credit, even dilatory and time-consuming debates, can be avoided or curtailed. Gridlock and red tape - conflicts involving turfs and prerogatives - will be reduced.

A corrupt and incompetent government can be easily replaced. The nation and the people will not be chained to any specific term of office. The incumbent political leadership may be changed any time, when the need to do so arises.

The rich and valuable experience of replaced members of the Cabinet is seldom wasted. The replaced Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet remain in parliament, despite the change of government.

The minority in parliament keeps the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet on their toes. All of them must be alert, accountable, and transparent at all times. The opposition can ask all sorts of questions without any prior warning. And these must be answered in parliament during the Question Hour. This is where we see transparency and accountability at their best. Here, no one is sacred, not even and especially the Prime Minister. This will most likely lessen corruption in government.

Periodic political changes, including a sudden fall of government, will not affect the civil service. Professionalism and merit, not political patronage, will become the hallmark of appointment and advancement in office. Governments will come and go, but the civil service will remain. The bureaucracy will be the principal cornerstone of continuity and the main pillar of efficient management of government functions.

The reform we are proposing is long overdue. We must embark upon it immediately if we want to spare our country from backwardness, stagnation, and poverty. Piecemeal reforms will be of no value to us. We have to change the entire presidential structure. The presidential system cannot be reformed. It must be changed entirely because its defect lies fundamentally in its structure.

Let me dispose the last point against our proposal. It is argued that, absent a developed and well-organized political-party-system and a well-trained civil service, we are not ready for a parliamentary system.

True, both institutions are not well developed in this country. And so, it is easy to say for those who prefer the status quo to remain that we are not ready.

The claim is not altogether valid. It attempts to simplify something complex. We should not expect a perfectly working parliamentary government the moment we abandon the presidential system. There are birth pains, which we cannot escape. There are adjustments to be made. There is a price to be paid. There is a necessary apprenticeship - a learning period - that we must undergo.

A political system that has managed to subsist for years on the basis of personalities and a civil service that has known more of patronage than merit will not be transformed overnight just because the form of government has changed. This will require an investment of time and effort. But it is a worthwhile and necessary investment, if we really want to get liberated from the decadence and rut we are in.

A presidential system, as much as a parliamentary system, requires developed and well-organized political-party-system and a well-trained civil service. But where these institutions have failed to develop under our presidential system, the parliamentary system will compel their accelerated growth and development. The parliamentary system will introduce the element of compulsion that is needed. We just have to be patient and allow the institutions to develop and mature.

Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, in a speech before our local businessmen, in November 1992, said, "The Philippines has chosen the most difficult political system to operate, with its checks and balances and gridlocks between the executive and the legislature. If this were the system chosen by South Korea, Hongkong, Taiwan, or we ourselves (Singapore), we would not have attained the status that we have now." When reminded about the success of the presidential system in the United States, he said, "Do not compare the Philippines and the United States. The latter has a limitless expanse of territory, a vast wealth and natural resources, and an incomparable industrial power."

People power in the country had already warned us of the urgent need to repair the functional defects of the presidential system. As leaders of this nation, I implore you to heed the signs of the times. Let us follow the path of peaceful and non-violent social change. Let us not squander any more time. Let us gather the boldness, the courage, the strength, and the patriotism to confront the future. Let us now change our system of government, and embark on a new beginning.

And with God's grace, with a clear vision of our national goal, and with our collective industry and prayers, we shall overcome our present national difficulties and bring our people to that good life they have long aspired for and truly deserve.

Thank you very much.

Speech delivered by Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines House of Delegates First National Convention at Leyte Park Resort Hotel, Tacloban City on 27 April 2002