Janette Toral posted a call for a discussion of issues relevant to the 2010 Philippine presidential elections, tagging a lot of bloggers in the process.

Instead of one post, I will make a series of post about this topic, and it will be an issue or two per post, hopefully. For every post, I will state an issue, explain why it should be an issue, and share my thoughts on the issue.

If you ask me why we should bother ourselves with the issue of electoral reforms, my answer will be short and sweet: 2005.

The Hello, Garci controversy had shook this nation from its forced stupor. Faced with the prospect of an Estrada comeback via proxy, most of us decided to choose the lesser evil, a choice that no one should have made since there are other choices during that election year (2004). After Gloria Arroyo “won”, everyone but the opposition had decided to stop thinking about politics and instead “channel their efforts into more constructive means of change,” effectively surrendering to the rotten political system we have. But when those wiretap tapes surfaced, many had realized that choosing the lesser evil was a stupid choice after all.

The controversy had shown that the electoral system we have now is easy to maneuver and manipulate. Before 2007, many groups called for electoral reforms, first through automation, and second by appointing competent people to the Commission on Elections. Both came to naught.

Why should this be an issue? At this point, we can all agree that our electoral system is broken, and it needs fixing. And we don’t act now, 2010 will be just a repeat of 2004 and 2007, with almost the same cast of characters. The operators are still around, and those who have retired are probably replaced with people trained for “special operations.” If we want to have leaders as truly elected by the people, we must not allow operators to impose their will on us.

How do we go about it? Two fronts attacking a single problem – fixing a broken system. First front – eliminating the chance for cheats to beat the system. Many people mistakenly think that automation is the end-all and be-all of electoral reforms. Not only this is short-sighted thinking, it is stupid. Like any system, an automated system is composed of several parts, and the weakest link in that system? People. And that is the second front – eliminating the cheats.

That is why appointing the right people for impending vacancies in the Comelec is crucial. These people must be highly competent, upright, honest, brave, and without integrity problems. The nominees should be selected carefully, and the people must be allowed to scrutinize the nominees’ records and voice their opposition. The nomination or selection process should be transparent.

Anyway, I will not tackle the first part, since it is technical in nature. Let’s leave that to the geeks. I think The Jester-in-Exile has a series of blog posts about election automation. The only thing I can share is KISS – keep it simple, stupid!

Still, it all boils down to a trustworthy bureaucracy – people, in a word. If we allow operators to remain within the system, any reform is useless. If we allow people of questionable reputation to sit in Comelec, reforms are impossible.

How do you think should we go with electoral reforms? Share your thoughts at the comments.

—

Don’t forget to vote in my poll, in case you haven’t voted yet.

Janette Toral posted a call for a discussion of issues relevant to the 2010 Philippine presidential elections, tagging a lot of bloggers in the process.

Instead of one post, I will make a series of post about this topic, and it will be an issue or two per post, hopefully. For every post, I will state an issue, explain why it should be an issue, and share my thoughts on the issue.

For this post, I will be tackling two issues of the near term: personality-vs-issue oriented elections, and the possibility of NO-EL or a shift to a parliamentary system.

—

If I was a pessimist (to a degree, I am), I would have retorted that elections and issues are like oil and water – in the Philippine context, they don’t mix. Since the time of Magsaysay, our national politics tended to be personality-oriented instead of issue-oriented. And with the 1987 Constitution instituting a multi-party system, the incentive for parties to campaign on issues was lost. I guess the main issue that all of us must agree on is that to make the 2010 elections issue-oriented instead of personality-oriented. This will be a tough act: the system is stacked against the idea of an issue-driven election.

Why is this an issue? Simple. We keep on complaining on the way our candidates campaign. We keep on asking for their ideas, their platforms. Yet they continue on ignoring such calls. Why? Because majority of the people prefer to be entertained than to be informed and enlightened.

Yeah, I know, it can be circular. But that is the nature of the beast. What can we do about this situation? We must engage our politicians in a discussion of issues. We pick on their brains, ask them pointed questions, seek out their opinions on issues. We must have a platform wherein a candidate and voters can interact: voters can post questions about issues and advocacies; candidates can answer queries, share their views and plans, and solicit support. Blogging is one such platform, though several caveats. One, majority of Filipinos do not have direct access to the Internet. People who rent by the hour tends to do personal tasks online (like visit a social network site, communicate with friends or relatives, or play online games). Two, most politicians are not really tech savvy as bloggers would want them to be. Then again, the platform is there, and it is up to the people (that includes you, dear reader) to use it.

—

Of course, the most immediate issue that needs to be addressed: Charter Change, the Arroyo bogey that surfaces every year.

The 2007 elections were bittersweet. The administration won handily in the local elections but lost the Senate. The rationale for a Charter change is nebulous. The cover was supposed to be a shift to a parliamentary system, the current system being bad (a subtle dig against the incumbent?). The real reason, as most people are wont of saying, is to have a good end-scenario for Gloria Arroyo. The 2006 experience was a bitter defeat for Jose de Venecia and his allies: they wanted to change the Constitution via Constituent Assembly, but they face an opposition Senate, and a threat from the Roman Catholic church forced JDV and his allies to retreat.

Also, a people’s initiative track was taken, by Sigaw ng Bayan, but it was strucked down by the Supreme Court in Lambino v. Comelec.

So it was imperative for the administration to win the Senate last year, if it wanted the Constituent Assembly mode of Charter Change. Alas, it lost the Senate. Or has it?

Taking into consideration the fact that Gloria Arroyo is looking at 2010, and it is not good. She can be assured that once she loses her immunity, she will face criminal cases left and right. Slowly fading into the night is not an option for her.

That is why I keep on attaching a caveat anytime I talk about 2010: if there will be an election. I find it highly amusing that many are actually looking forward to 2010. For some people, it will be a welcome change after nine years of Arroyo. But will there be change come 2010?

Why is this an issue? Why talk about 2010 if we do not pay attention and let the Congress rob us of a national elections? It is simple as that.

The short-term outlook is that Cha-cha is close to impossible at this point, and Arroyo has no choice but to step down in 2010, barring any extra-constitutional reasons to stay on. I repeat: barring any extra-constitutional reasons to stay on. Never discount the impossible, as a desperate person resorts to desperate measures. So it is important for us to again keep watch, and stop any efforts to ditch a national elections come 2010.

Unless that is what you want, of course.

—

Up next: Electoral reforms. And do watch Man of the Year for context. Join the discussion: make a blog post about issues that you think should matter in the 2010 elections, or leave a comment expressing your views on the matter.

And don’t forget to vote in my poll, in case you haven’t voted yet.

There was one curious thing that Rep. Satur Ocampo had said at the recently-concluded Bloggers Kapihan 3.0. In October 2000, Bayan Muna was contacted by Gloria Arroyo’s group, seeking some working relationship with them, with a promise that GMA would support any mass movement versus Joseph Estrada.

On November 20, Bayan Muna and other sympathetic groups presented a 20-point program to Gloria Arroyo, including peace talks, agrarian reform, and rescinding WTO commitments. It seems that a working relationship was forged at that point.

Fast forward to January 2001. With the outrage triggered by the Craven 11, Mike Arroyo’s group, led by Renato de Villa and Lisandro Abadia, contacted Bayan Muna and similar groups, asking for their commitment to fill EDSA with people.

While this is already common knowledge (as written in numerous occasions by other people, like this one by MLQ3), hearing it from one of the protagonists sure beats hearsay. And it gives credence to what some people have already said: that EDSA 2 is a conspiracy that succeeded. And as they say, defeat is an orphan.

UPDATE:

Atty. Theodore Te calls EDSA 2 as “the first successful coup d’etat” in the country.