Carpe Diem

Today, all of us, I believe, are aware of the growing revolutionary ferment in the country. The political uproar and backlash from the hated purchased power adjustment is not unlike a raging tidal wave rushing to shore to ravage the land.

The communist insurgency, instead of abating, is becoming stronger and more dangerous. The New People's Army has intensified its political and military recruitment and expansion in the countryside. It has strengthened its financial resources through revolutionary taxes. Metro-Manila is virtually surrounded. Cavite, Laguna, Rizal, Bulacan, and Bataan are infested provinces.

The unsettled and festering conflict in Mindanao with the MNLF and the MILF lingers on, like a persistent toothache. That conflict threatens to escalate the level of violence in southern Philippines. And this is in spite of the virtual and abject surrender of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Moslem rebels in her clandestine agreements of appeasement with the MILF.

The Abu Sayyaf disaster has remained a source of international shame and disgrace for the country and embarrassment to the United States. And this is true in spite of the employment of so much of our military assets and resources and in spite of the celebrated presence of American troops to quell it.

If we turn to law and order, we are immediately dismayed and gripped with a grave sense of alarm. Our streets and homes are no longer safe. People in the urban centers are exposed to risks not dissimilar to the legendary wild, Wild West. Their lives and limbs and property are helplessly and dangerously exposed daily to the base designs of predatory criminal elements.

Never before were criminals as bold and as brazen as they are now. And neither were kidnappings, carnappings, holdups, robberies, murders, rapes, and sale of dangerous drugs as rampant in the country as they are today.

A vast number of our people are impatient and angry. They demand radical and fundamental changes in our political, economic, and social structures. No longer are they satisfied with rhetorical promises of a better life from their leaders. They insist on positive actions and concrete results. They want to have and they look for innovative, imaginative, and resolute leadership and governance.

Ayaw na nila na sabihin sa kanila na "may gloria ang bukas mo." Ang bukas sa kanila ay mahabang panahon. Ang ibig nila ay ngayon na sapagkat gutom na sila at hirap na sila.

Adding fuel to the already volatile, anarchic, and rebellious condition of our society is the widening gap between the poor who are many and the rich who are few. For, the common people are certainly the ones most affected by the spreading and deepening mass poverty in the land. Legions are without jobs and without sources of income. Countless suffers from malnutrition because of lack of enough food, while others die, especially among the young, of disease for lack of necessary medicine and medical attention.

Many of them languish in jail because of lack of means to release themselves out on bail or to hire the services of competent lawyers to protect their rights. These are the classic models of that often repeated maxim -- "Justice delayed is justice denied."

And so, today we see them again marching in droves in our streets shouting angrily and protesting loudly against the uneven handed justice in our society, the violation of their human rights, and the high cost of necessities like shelter, clothing, electricity, water, fuel, food, medicine, and education.

Unless selfless and enlightened leaders of the country summon their political will and act soon to satisfy the yearning of the common people for a just and humane society and for a better life, I am afraid, necessity and their degrading plight will push them to the brink. They will take the law into their own hands to liberate themselves from poverty and redress the criminal neglect of government to provide for their needs or to mitigate, at least, their distressed and squalid condition.

What I have just said is not a mere speculation, nor is it the product of a fertile but whimsical mind. I dare say that there is ground to be apprehensive, to be vigilant in fact. For in a span of fifteen years from February 1986, this country was already convulsed by three dangerous political upheavals.

Although the upheavals have not resulted in any serious social pain to the nation and have caused very minimal destruction and bloodshed, two nevertheless brought about the forcible removal of incumbent presidents from their seat of power.

The military, in two of those three political convulsions, was drawn into and made to participate in purely political activities. And in both cases, the military decided the outcome in utter disregard of the constitution.

The lawfully established procedure to remove a president of the Republic was wantonly set aside. Political and military pressure, planned and executed in a clandestine and conspiratorial fashion, was unabashedly used, instead, because it was thought to be much faster, more practical, and far more effective than impeachment to achieve the desired premeditated end.

The involvement of the military, in the case of Edsa Dos, was not done by rebellious enlisted men, or by disgruntled junior or middle level officers. It was the play of few top generals in the active service, which were in command of the military organization.

These top generals were led by the Chief of Staff, the highest military commander in the chain of command below the President and the chief and direct adviser to the President on security and military matters.

The Chief of Staff, the number one soldier and the overall commander of the entire military organization of the Republic, has the constitutional duty and responsibility to protect the Presidency and the seat of state and political power of the nation, if need be with his own life, against any threat from any predatory force or violence.

But, the Chief of Staff was the first to turn his back on his Commander-in-Chief. With an uncharacteristic alacrity, which was unusual for a well-trained and hardened soldier and one instilled in discipline, he cut the chain of command by simply withdrawing, in so many words, his obligation of loyalty and obedience to the duly constituted authority, the president elected by the sovereign people. That was how facile, how swift, how efficient, and how effective the operation was.

There was something definitely wrong in the conduct of the Chief of Staff as a soldier that would call for an adverse description, which I would not wish to make plain at this time. Let History judge him!

What emerges from all these are not the solid and confident image of a secure and stable society. What we see, instead, is a society hemmed by expanding revolutionary forces on one side and by our own military force led by no less ambitious military leaders on the other side.

This observation gains special credence when viewed against the backdrop of the new role of the military as the "protector of the people and the State."

It is apparent that two formidable social forces loom today as real dangers to our society. First are the revolutionary groups, which are now gaining grounds all over the land. And second is the military, our own legitimate institution against unlawful violence, which has become a major political player because of Edsa Uno and Edsa Dos. The implication of this twin scenario is an ugly one for our freedom and democracy.

To avoid this potential national tragedy, we must deal decisively with our national problems wisely, boldly, firmly, resolutely, and without delay. We can no longer temporize. We do not have the luxury of time. Let not personal interest or ambition, be it economic or political, stand in the way, or friendship or relation become an obstacle.

We must address our national problems with total dedication and commitment and without passion except only our love of country, our eagerness to promote the common good, and our desire to serve the well being of our people.

We must disregard all personalities and interests that hinder our earnest quest for remedies that will relieve our nation of a spreading backwardness and deepening decay. We must bear in mind that what is at stake are the freedom and the democratic way of life of our children and loved ones.

I humbly suggest that our quest for ways and means to arrest our growing national decadence must start where we really ought to begin -- the Constitution. Let us revisit our organic law and excise from it those provisions and institutions that impede our modernization and advancement.

The present Constitution is not the Word of God. It was the handiwork of fallible and mortal men, who were selected -- not elected -- to frame the Constitution and who, I am inclined to believe, had their own passions, prejudices, and biases.

I dare not question their noble intentions. I accept that they were probably the best minds and the most experienced then to frame the Constitution. But they were as human and fallible as we all are. It was highly possible that they were not able to capture the real aspirations of the people.

There are grounds to believe that they focused more on perceived excesses of the defunct Marcos government that had just passed into history. I suspect that they never foresaw nor anticipated the problems and ill effects thereafter that the provisions they had crafted would create on the political and social life of our people.

Now we have the experience from a decade and a half of actual application of the present Constitution. We know that the Constitution and some of the institutions it created are flawed. We know this now as a matter of fact.

Much has been said about the financial cost that we will incur if we undertake to revise the Constitution and the divisiveness it will inflict on the nation.

Financial cost should be the least of our concern to do what needs to be done to improve the well being 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 money for a useless Borloloy building or a white elephant EXPO 2000, why can we not spend a couple of billions of our cheapened money to move away from our backwardness and to arrest our growing decadence? That indeed would make us penny wise and pound foolish!

As far as divisiveness is concerned, that should be expected. Are we not a democratic state? Are we not operating under the spirit of free inquiry and debate where no proposition is left unexamined?

In our democratic republican system, everything is discussed before it is decided. And the decision is invariably rendered with finality through a division of the house.

We do that in every meeting, in every deliberative assembly, and in every corporate boardroom. That is done in the Cabinet, in both houses of Congress, in the Supreme Court, and in every collegial body. Even the media do it almost always on major national issues. So, why should divisiveness bother us in confronting a problem as important and urgent as revising and improving the Constitution?

Now then, what are the areas of the Constitution that ought to be looked into? There are several of them, but let me just outline the most important and urgent ones. The others can wait for a more opportune time.

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

Second is whether we should continue with a bicameral legislature and, if we do, whether we should continue electing our senators nationally or elect them, instead, regionally.

Third is whether we continue to impose term limits for elective public officials or whether we leave to the people the prerogative of deciding how long their elective public officials remain in their chosen elective posts.

Fourth is whether we maintain the current frequency of national and local elections or whether we find a way to make our electoral process more efficient and less expensive for the candidates and the nation.

Fifth is whether we maintain the multi-party system or whether we revert to the two-party system just like what we had under the 1935 Constitution.

Sixth is whether we maintain the present nationalization of the police service or we revert to the system we had before the nationalization. We must assess this carefully in the light of the present condition of law and order in the country.

Seventh is 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 invested with a special prerogative to decide by itself the national condition and circumstance under which it can and must intervene and act to protect "the people and the State."

This role of the military is a carte blanche that may bring about dire possibilities for the nation. It is, therefore, necessary to clarify this role of the military and define the situation contemplated by this specific provision of the Constitution.

Does the provision mean that the military will protect the "people and the State" only from internal rebellion as well as from foreign invasion, or does it also include protection from unpopular, unwanted, and or oppressive administration?

Eighth is whether we continue the current power and jurisdiction of the Commission on Appointments or whether we do away with the Judicial and Bar Council and we revert to the system under the 1935 Constitution. The present system is conducive to and abets corruption in government.

Ninth is to recast the present judicial system and make it more responsive to the demands of a fair, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of civil and criminal cases.

Tenth is to review 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 will welcome foreign participation. This is important to assure foreign investors of a broader and stable playing field.

The central and most important part of our Constitution is the presidential system. It is the one that needs desperately our attention. We have been operating under it since the birth of the Republic.

From the provisional government of Biak-na-Bato, to the Malolos Congress, to the Philippine Bill of 1902, to the 1935 Constitution, to the Japanese sponsored constitution under President Jose P. Laurel, to the restored 1935 Constitution after the defeat of the Japanese invaders, to the 1973 Constitution, to the revolutionary constitution adopted after the Edsa revolution of 1986, all the way to the 1987 Constitution, we have always used the presidential system to govern and manage the affairs of the country.

The 1973 Constitution attempted to replace the presidential system with a parliamentary system, but the attempt was never fully pursued. The then incumbent president, having declared martial law near the end of 1972, decided to assume the positions both of President and Prime Minister.

When the parliament was finally elected and constituted in 1978, it was a parliament only in name, not in substance and actual operation. Although the incumbent president gave up his position as Prime Minister, he nevertheless retained his lawmaking powers under the so-called Amendment No. 6, which were far broader and superior than those of Parliament.

In 1981, the 1973 Constitution was amended and returned us back to the presidential system.

We have a deep emotional attachment to the presidential system without realizing its drawback. Many of us believe that it is the only system suited for us. This attitude is strong even among the well-informed members of our society.

However, our national experience proves that the system has failed to work well for us. In the United States, the presidential system appears to have been successful. But the result in other countries that adopted it seems otherwise.

If we compare ourselves with our neighbors, we can see that we have not progressed under the presidential system as fast and as much as many of our neighbors did under the parliamentary system over a shorter period of time. The progress and modernity that our neighbors gained in a shorter time under the parliamentary system are definitely far greater and more superior than what we achieved for more than a century under the presidential system.

Claro M. Recto, the president of the constitutional convention that framed the 1935 Constitution, called the presidential system "a government of the incompetent by the irresponsible." Although his statement might be too harsh or might even be untrue, still it nevertheless betrayed his personal contempt for the system. To him, the presidential system "can make fool of all the people all the time and make fools of themselves for four years."

I can understand Recto's disdain for the presidential system. For truly, under the presidential system, the members of the Cabinet, who are never elected by the people, possess more real powers than the elected members of Congress do.

The members of the Cabinet exercise, along with the president, complete control of the government. They possess the power to enforce the laws, spend public funds, and implement policies approved by Congress without any responsibility and accountability to the people.

On the other hand, the members of Congress, who are the duly elected direct representatives of the people and who authorized the expenditure of the public funds and who approved the laws and policies, do not have direct participation whatsoever in their expenditure, enforcement, and implementation. And yet they are the ones directly responsible and accountable to the people.

In addition, there are also other factors that weigh heavily against the presidential system. The first has to do with what I call the choosing process. After Edsa Uno, we can no longer be sure that only those truly qualified for the office will run. Nor are we certain that only the best of those who will run will be chosen for the position.

A growing number of voters with low level of intellectual sophistication has aggravated the choosing process. This class of voters tends to develop a fetish for popular candidates whose best qualities qualify them for everything else except public office.

Moreover, even an improvement in the educational level of our voters has not enhanced the political maturity and reliability of the electorate either.

The second factor refers to the number of voters required to 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 has been our experience in 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.

Although in a democracy like us, a majority of the voters is supposed to elect the president, that is no longer possible or even necessary in our case. And this is so because we have adopted a multi-party system and necessarily its very nature allows a multiple number of presidential candidates.

Furthermore, despite the multiple number of presidential candidates, we determine the winner in just one balloting. Our Constitution does not require another balloting to insure that the elected president will obtain a majority of the votes cast. In other countries, electing a president by a mere plurality of the votes cast is not allowed. A run-off election is normally a required feature of their electoral process.

Consequently, we will always have under the present Constitution a president that does not represent the majority will of the nation. Thus he has no clear mandate from the people to govern.

This, in my view, impairs seriously his confidence, legitimacy, and stability as a leader to rule the country and to manage the government. This is probably one of the reasons for the insecurities and troubles of our post Edsa 1986 presidents.

The third factor has to do with the protection of the interest of the candidates and the expenses in running for president. The present Constitution has directly banned and thus effectively deprived political parties and candidates for elective public office of their right to be represented in electoral boards. Political parties and their candidates are not allowed direct official representation in the Board of Registration, in the Board of Inspectors, and in the Board of Canvassers. With so many political parties and candidates because of the multi-party system, it is impossible to accommodate everyone.

Consequently, political parties and their candidates cannot directly and fully protect their interest during elections. They have to rely solely on the fairness, honesty, probity, and trustworthiness of the Commission on Elections.

Being the sole implementers of our electoral process, the Commission on Elections is supposed to be a non-partisan organization. It is supposed to act with utmost impartiality and protect the interest of everyone. But the Commission on Elections is unfortunately a human institution and its best intentions are not always translated into actual honest decisions and actions during elections.

Under the system prior to the present Constitution, the two major political parties then were represented in the electoral boards. Although it was true that that representation in the electoral boards did not totally protect the political parties during elections, what was an inadequate protection then is now completely lost under the current Constitution.

And so, a presidential candidate, who must be elected by a national constituency, has to protect his votes in every precinct across the land. The money required for that purpose is exceedingly large and utterly senseless. Even now, when 2004 is still far away, there are already whispers about the jolting amount of money being raised for a potential candidate for the top post.

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

Regardless of who would be elected president, he would very likely attempt, no matter what, to recover his election expenses and pay his political debts. For no one would believe that a person would spend two billion pesos, a huge sum of money, to become president of the country without any effort on his part to get it back. This would most likely explain why there was such a high incidence of corruption in the political totem pole of the land.

The fourth factor to consider is the issue of accountability. How is the president going to be made accountable to the people while in office? Once installed as president, he will not face the people again for judgment in an election. He is limited to a single term of six years without re-election. How can his acts and decisions be made truly open and transparent to the public?

Remember, as president he becomes the head of state, the head of government, the chief executive of Philippines, Inc., the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, the top police officer of the land, and the number one politician of the realm. His powers are awesome and many regard him relatively as more powerful than the President of the United States.

Once in office, he knows he cannot be divested legally of his office 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. He can even lie to his teeth, or use his awesome powers to threaten his adversaries. He can ward off unwelcome scrutiny from a vigilant opposition or hostile and nosy media, or from the heated passion of an aroused public.

To the utter dismay of the people, he can play deaf and dumb or blind to the most outrageous excesses. What is worse, he can commit the excesses himself. In that event, the people would have no recourse other than to use force, the ultimo ratio, and act directly against him. This was what happened in the Edsa phenomena.

The fifth factor to consider has to do with the president's ability to govern. To perform his job well, he must have the full support and cooperation of the other organs of government. But, this is easier said than done.

From our experience with the presidential system, more often than not, the three coordinate and coequal branches of the government are more concerned with their being coequal with separate powers than with their being coordinate and integral parts of one government whose main task is to pursue common national goals.

We have seen how the executive and the legislative branches of the government were locked in acrimonious conflict over policy. We have seen 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 sixth factor refers to the tenure of the president. He has a fixed, inextensible term of six years. He can be dispossessed of his office only through voluntary resignation, death, removal by impeachment, or his permanent disability to discharge the functions of the presidency.

In a country where hardly anyone resigns even for the most inexcusable or unmitigated reason, the people would be doomed to suffer for a full six years if the electorate should err in choosing a corrupt, inept, unfit, inutile, faithless, or deceitful president. Should that happen, there would be no speedy and adequate remedy except through people power with the active support of the military and the police. We have seen this happen.

But to involve the military and the police in purely partisan activity would pose a mortal danger to the nation. The role of the military as "the protector of the people and the State" when combined with the hardship, impatience, and ugly mood of the citizenry would present dreadful possibilities for our society. Unless we take concrete measures to prevent the occurrence of such dreadful possibilities, we may lose our freedom and democracy.

The last factor to consider is the quality and fitness of the elected national leader. In a presidential system, a demagogue has a better chance of getting elected president than a democrat for the simple reason that the president is elected by the entire national electorate. Many of the electorate might not really have enough familiarity with the skills needed to be president, let alone know the abilities, characters, and backgrounds of the ones seeking the office.

As a consequence, the mediocre, the meretricious is often more acceptable to the electorate than the meritorious. Popularity becomes the primary basis for selecting a candidate for the presidency rather than ability and good character. Therefore, it is not surprising to see a popular incompetent being succeeded by a more popular incompetent.

Presidential systems are irreformable. Their structures are fundamentally defective. This was the finding of Professor Fred Riggs of the University of Hawaii in a study he made in 1992.

Moreover, in searching for and choosing the best and qualified leaders to govern a nation and to manage the bureaucracy, the presidential system is vastly inferior to the parliamentary system. Walter Bagehot arrived at this conclusion in his famous book The English Constitution. According to him, sometimes the presidential system produces a great president. But, that is like winning in a lottery, he said. And winning in a lottery, he added, is no argument in favor of a lottery.

In November 1992, a perceptive Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, in a speech before our local businessmen, said this of us: "The Philippines has chosen the most difficult political system to operate, with its checks and balances and gridlock's between the executive and the legislature. If this were the system chosen by South Korea, Hongkong, Taiwan, or we ourselves, we would not have attained the status that we have now."

When Lee Kuan Yew was reminded about the success of the presidential system in the United States, he pointedly 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."

And so, to the leaders of this country I make this earnest plea for the sake of the people. Let us harness our sense of patriotism, selflessness, courage, sagacity, and national purpose and shift our present presidential form of government to a parliamentary system. Let us do this as soon as possible.

Only through such a radical change can we expect to develop a more principled politics, establish an efficient, effective, and responsive government, and enlist better and qualified men and women for public service.

We need well-organized political parties with sound programs of government. We need dedicated, competent, and enlightened set of leaders to revive, nurture, and strengthen the economy and rapidly transform and modernize our political, economic, and social orders. We have to regain the country's status and prestige as a worthy member of the community of nations.

With our sad experience with recurrent people power, which tend to divide rather than unite our people, not to mention the risky involvement of the military and the police organizations, the parliamentary system is the most practical and fitting system for our country. This system will eliminate many of the pitfalls, defects, and weaknesses of the presidential system.

Elections will not exhaust the energies and resources of the nation to produce appropriate leaders. Elections will only exhaust the energies and resources of the political parties, which will be responsible in searching, recruiting, preparing, and installing qualified, capable, and good men and women to govern the nation and manage our public affairs. The political parties will have to if they want to remain as relevant players in the political activities of the society. Political parties must have the right men and women to articulate and implement their party platforms and to provide sound governance for the people.

Members of parliament will be elected in congressional districts, which are small geographical areas with relatively lesser number of voters. Consequently, from the viewpoint of the candidates, the elections will be easier to handle and to manage. Elections will be cheaper and less dishonest than now. No one will have to spend P2,000,000,000.00 to become a Member of Parliament or a Prime Minister. The influence of special interest groups will be minimized. The level of violence during election time, with the consequent disruption of peace and order in the country, will be reduced.

Since the Members of Parliament choose the Prime Minister, he can just as easily be removed through a simple no-confidence motion if he does not measure up to the expectations of the people and his peers or if he does something inimical or injurious to the nation.

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

The longevity of the Prime Minister in office will depend on his trustworthiness, on his skill and ability to lead, and on his capacity and sagacity to formulate and adopt, to explain and communicate, and to effectively implement sound programs, policies, and decisions for the common good.

A comedian, a mere charlatan, or even a clown or a good reader of an idiot board can become a president of this country, but he can never be a Prime Minister. To qualify one as a Prime Minister, he must have a broad knowledge of the country and the international community. He must possess a wide range of experience in public affairs.

In addition, he must be a skilled and a well-versed political leader with executive acumen and a gift for articulation and with a fairly sharp mind. He must have the deft and depth for statecraft and enough exposure over a wide variety of human disciplines. He must be ready at anytime to stand alone in Parliament and be able to think on his feet and face the nation and the opposition to answer questions on a variety of subjects.

Governance will be transparent and responsive to public need. Accountability and responsibility to the people and to Parliament will be direct and immediate. Passing the buck or blame on others for failures will be lessened, if not eradicated.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the government will be enhanced. There is a fusion of executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary government. The members of the Cabinet are mostly drawn from and continue to be or become Members of Parliament. The members of the Cabinet will participate directly in the enactment and implementation of laws.

Hence the energies of government will be more focused in the service of the nation, instead of being wasted away on trivial things. Dilatory and long-drawn debates will be avoided. Rivalries for recognition and credit between the executive and the legislative will be curtailed. Red tape and gridlock, including conflicts over turf, will be reduced, if not eliminated.

A corrupt and incompetent government will be replaceable immediately. The nation will not be chained to any definite and specific term of office for the incumbent leader. The leadership may be changed anytime if the need to do so arises.

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

The minority in Parliament keeps the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on their toes. They must be alert, transparent, and subject to questions at all times. Without any warning, the minority can ask all sorts of questions and the Prime Minister must answer these in Parliament. These are transparency and accountability at their best. For no one in Parliament is sacred, not even and especially the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. This will lessen corruption in government.

A sudden fall of the government will not affect the civil service. Professionalism and merit, not political connections, will become the hallmark of appointment and advancement in office. Governments may come and go, but the civil service will remain. It will be the main cornerstone of stability and continuity, and efficient management of the bureaucracy.

Some argue that we cannot adopt a parliamentary system because we have not developed a well-organized political party system and a well-trained civil service. For those who prefer to maintain the status quo, it is easy to say that we are not ready. However, that argument should not be used to prevent the adoption of a parliamentary system of government in this country.

We should not expect a perfectly working parliamentary system at the very start. There are birth pains, which we cannot escape. There is a necessary learning period, an apprenticeship, so to speak, that we must undergo. There are adjustments to be made, and a price to be paid.

A political system that has managed over the years to subsist 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 be liberated from the decadence and rut we are in.

Both presidential and parliamentary systems require developed and well-organized political party system as well as a well-trained civil service. But where these institutions have not developed under the presidential system, the parliamentary system will compel their accelerated growth and development. The parliamentary system will introduce the needed element of compulsion. We just have to be patient and allow the institutions to develop and mature.

The reform I am proposing is long overdue. We must embark upon it without any further delay if we want really to save our country from backwardness, stagnation, and deepening poverty. Piecemeal reforms are of little value to us. We have to excise the entire presidential structure. The presidential system cannot be reformed. It must be changed entirely because its defects lie fundamentally in its very nature.

Three political convulsions had already warned us of the urgent need to repair the functional deficiencies of the presidential system. As the leaders of this country, I urge you to heed the signs of the times. While we still have enough time, let us follow the peaceful and non-violent road to social change.

Let us not squander anymore time. Let us rise above our self-interest and gather the boldness, the strength, and the patriotism to confront the future. And with God's grace, with a clear vision of our national goals, and with our collective industry and prayers, we shall overcome our present national weaknesses and bring our people to that good life that they have long aspired for and truly deserve.

Thank you very much.

Speech of Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile before the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) Legislative Agenda Workshop on 19 July 2002, at the Holiday Inn, Mimosa, Clark, Pampanga.