People's Consultative Assembly National Congress

Today, we are confronted with the problem of revolution. The gap between the few that are rich and the many that are poor is ever widening. There is a mounting demand for drastic and fundamental changes in our society. Because of this, the revolutionary spirit is very evident in the country. The question is no longer "if," but "when," it will happen. Unless something is done soon to effect a peaceful but radical change in our present system, the inevitability of revolution can not be avoided.

Candidly speaking, our democracy, I am sad to say, is a complete sham. It is a democracy only for the rich, for the privileged, for the powerful, for the influential, and for the intelligentsia. It is not a democracy for the multitudes - for the poor and the powerless.

As a matter of fact, our present system is nothing but a plutocratic oligarchy. It is disguised as a democracy to hide its real character. But, in reality, it is an oligarchy of rich merchants, of big bankers, of cartel-oriented industrialists, of international traders, of big landowners, of politicized religious bodies, of powerful media owners, and their minions in politics, in the military, and in the police. The poor and the powerless are only their useful pawns, which they manipulate, to maintain their political and economic grip over the country.

The Revolution of 1896 sought to establish a political authority that would truly reflect our people's aspirations. It wanted a political authority that would serve as an instrument of national liberation. It envisioned a political authority that would promote the people's intellectual and moral development. It desired a political authority that was to serve as an effective tool for the people's economic and social well being.

However, these lofty goals were never achieved. Instead, the foreign oligarchy that ruled the country was expelled from power only to be replaced by a native plutocratic oligarchy. This native plutocratic oligarchy has survived to this day. To understand this, let me outline briefly the events from 1896.

In November 1897, fifty-two revolutionary leaders convened in Biak-na-Bato. They established a provisional constitutional republican government. The government of the Republic was vested in a Council. The Council was composed of a President, a Vice-President, and four secretaries who made up the cabinet: the secretaries of foreign relations, war, interior, and treasury. The Council was in effect a parliamentary system. There was a fusion of executive and legislative powers in the Council.

When General Emilio Aguinaldo arrived in Cavite from his exile in Hongkong in May 1898, he dissolved the Republic of Biak-na Bato and proclaimed a "Dictatorial Government," with him as the dictator.

In June 1898, the "Dictatorial Government" was converted into a "Revolutionary Government," largely through the advice of Mabini. The "Revolutionary Government" was composed of a President and four ministries. A Revolutionary Congress was also created. But there was no separate judiciary. A permanent commission of the Revolutionary Congress was instituted to serve as an appellate court for suits from the provincial governments and for appeals from the administration of military justice.

The Revolutionary Congress met in Malolos to draft a constitution in the early part of 1899. In that Congress, there were two groups that competed for ascendancy: the "absolutist" and the "constitutionalist." Apolinario Mabini represented the "absolutist" group. Felipe Calderon, on the other hand, led the "constitutionalist" group. Both groups recognized the necessity of a strong political authority. Mabini was for a strong executive, whereas Calderon favored a strong legislature.

The Calderon group prevailed. As a consequence, the constitution placed the political authority of the country in a legislature composed of an "intellectual oligarchy." The Calderon group did not trust the so-called "oligarchy of ignorant elements," the masses, although they were bearing the brunt of the revolution.

When the Americans came, the country was placed under a military government. This lasted up to April of 1900. Then the Philippine Commission took over. Under the Philippine Commission, there was again a fusion of executive and legislative powers.

In 1907, a Governor General took over the executive powers of the Philippine Commission. Its legislative function was transferred to a National Assembly whose members were elected. At this point, the powers of government were separated in three coordinate and co-equal departments: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. In 1916, the Jones Law added a senate and made the legislature a bicameral body.

In 1934, when the Commonwealth Government was established, the President exercised executive powers, the National Assembly exercised legislative powers, and the Judiciary exercised judicial powers. The United States was represented by a Governor General.

During World War II, the country was initially under Japanese Military rule. On October 14, 1943, the country brought back the presidential system when Jose P. Laurel took his oath as President of the Philippines.

When the Americans liberated the Philippines, the Commonwealth Government was restored with its presidential form of government. A Governor General represented the United States Government.

When we gained our independence in 1946, we retained the presidential system of government. This remained until September 21, 1972, when President Marcos declared martial law. Because of martial law, there was again a fusion of executive and legislative powers in the President.

In 1973, we adopted a constitution, which provided for a parliamentary government with a unicameral parliament. When the Parliament was convened in 1978, it never functioned as a real parliament. The then incumbent president possessed superior legislative powers under the so-called Amendment No. 6.

In 1981, the Constitution was again amended and returned us back to the presidential system. This effectively obliterated the country's attempt to have a parliamentary system.

After Edsa 1986, a revolutionary government was installed. Again there was a fusion of executive and legislative power in the president.

In 1987, the present Constitution was adopted. It finally restored the full presidential system that we have today.

Our emotional attachment with the presidential system is, indeed, long and deep. Many of us believe, perhaps, without realizing its drawback, that the presidential system is the only form of government suited for our country. This is true even among the well-educated members of our society.

But, the contrary is probably closer to the truth. Our experience indicates that the system has failed to work for us. It worked well for the few who are rich and privileged. But, it has not worked well for the multitudes that are poor and powerless.

Although the presidential system appears to have been a success in the United States, that success does not seem to have been realized in the case of other countries that adopted it.

And so, if we continue with the presidential system, I am afraid, there is no assurance that it will provide us with a dependable political tool to address our deeply rooted economic and social problems.

In the first place, the presidential system is vastly inferior to the parliamentary system in choosing the best leaders. Sometimes the presidential system produces a great president. But, that is like winning a lottery. And winning a lottery is no argument in favor of a lottery.

In the second place, the members of the Cabinet, who are not even elected, possess more real powers than the elected representatives of the people do. They exercise with the president complete control and supervision over the government. They spend public funds, enforce the laws, and implement policies without any direct accountability to the people. On the other hand, the members of Congress - the elected representatives of the people and directly accountable to them - become mere onlookers. And this is so even though they are the ones who appropriated the public funds and approved the laws and policies being spent and implemented.

We must, therefore, summon, while there is still time, our sense of patriotism, political purpose, courage, and sagacity and discard the presidential system in favor of the parliamentary system of government. Only a determined and radical change, such as we are proposing, 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 and risky experience with people power, the parliamentary system is the most suitable system for our purposes. The parliamentary system will eliminate many of the pitfalls, defects, and weaknesses of the presidential system.

Let us not squander any more time. Let us move now when legal and peaceful means to effect radical changes in our society are still adequate and available. Let us not wait when radical changes will be forced upon us because, then, it will be too late and beyond our control.

Speech of Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile before the People's Consultative Assembly National Congress on 29 April 2002 at Club Filipino.