Quacks and quackery

All this talk about extending PNoy’s term by another 6 years is garbage. I’d rather focus on and sustain the debate regarding the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). Parenthetically, on DAP, our position is definite – it is a tool for efficiency and good governance, it is economically sound, and it has legal legs, only to be struck down by a rigid yet populist Supreme Court.

The hullaballoo about amending the Constitution to re-elect PNoy is a waste of time. It is counterproductive. It will result in the loss of the momentum for reforms and the diminution of PNoy’s political capital. Similarly, it is splitting the ranks within the administration, resulting in a weakened presidency. 

Arguably the objective of this foolish proposal is to project that PNoy is not going to become a lame duck. But the unintended effect is the opposite; it betrays the fear that P-Noy and the Liberal Party are losing their grip.  PNoy is inadvertently sending the message that his preferred successor is going to lose the election in 2016 and in that case he would rather stay in power. He is likewise signaling to Kris Aquino – who by the way can easily beat his preferred successor in any elective post – and his other sisters that the siblings have no choice but to support him, not Jejomar Binay, in the event that he is allowed to seek re-election.

Didn’t the conspirators of this scheme anticipate that even PNoy’s consistent supporters would repudiate it? Here’s what Noel Medina, an old-time friend and a long-standing card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, posted on Facebook:  “Sorry my President, this is where I draw the line. I am for genuine reforms, but definitely not for term extension. We need to strengthen our institutions, not our leaders. Mixing your claimed good intention with a perceived power agenda under the present political context sends a wrong message to our people. May wisdom reign upon this government.”

Among PNoy’s supporters, this issue is going to separate the wheat from the chaff. It will distinguish the critical thinkers from the clueless, the blind loyalists and the bootlickers.

For the moment, let’s set aside the grand arguments for or against amending the term limit for the President. The immediate problem with the proposal to allow PNoy a new term is its credibility. PNoy, even as he tries to play the role, doesn’t look like a duck; doesn’t walk like a duck, doesn’t swim like a duck. He is therefore not a duck. It is just not the way he is.

The noise we hear is the quacking of Mar Roxas and the flock of sycophants. PNoy is supposedly looking for a groundswell of support for term extension. Perhaps an indicator of such is the number of likes for what Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda posted on his Facebook page. Lacierda shared the status of Leah Navarro, which basically endorses another term for PNoy. A week has passed, and 38 people have liked the post. That number is less than the number of likes (70 likes) for an earlier post from Lacierda, a Jackson 5 video.

But assume that PNoy listens to the quacks of Roxas and flock, and transforms himself into a duck (not a lame duck).  That’s where the real trouble begins.

Playing with the Constitution for a self-serving purpose, despite a seemingly noble end, is dangerous. It will tear apart his coalition.  That means putting the unfinished reform agenda on the back burner. That means putting at risk the passage of the Bangsa Moro entity, freedom of information, rationalization of fiscal incentives, mineral taxation, land use, competition framework, modernization of the Bureau of Customs, etc – precisely the measures that will make P-Noy’s legacy endure.

In addition, this administration does not have the luxury of time to simultaneously tackle the passage of a host of reforms, many of which are steeped in controversy, and the amendment of the Constitution.  Worse, any attempt to amend a provision of the Constitution opens a Pandora’s box. What will prevent politicians from demanding longer terms, or business interests asking for the lifting of the restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution? Regardless of one’s positions on these controversial issues, their passage cannot just be rushed in the penultimate year of the PNoy presidency.

More importantly, suddenly changing the Constitution to prevent a Binay presidency is a deviation from daang matuwid.  The straight and correct path is essentially about good governance by way of building and strengthening institutions. Good leaders are necessary, but their role is not to replace institutions but to make the institutions work.

The movers for PNoy’s term extension do not grasp that relationship between institutions and leaders.  They perpetuate the backward thinking that only a Messiah in the form of PNoy can save the Philippines.

The proponents of term extension offer a wrong prescription; they might  not have even thought through the negative unintended consequences of such action.  Haven’t we forgotten the negative, painful lesson from the elite’s acquiescing to legal deviations, in its desperation to stop Fernando Poe Jr from becoming president?

Term extension ostensibly for the common good but essentially self-serving is a move we do not expect from a reformist president. As a prescription, it is quackery.  Even as a tactical ploy to make PNoy look strong, it is infantile and amateurish. Its lack of credibility at the outset is exposed.

Let us make one final assumption that PNoy will hurdle all the obstacles to having an extended term. He then faces the ultimate challenge – fighting Binay for the presidency. 

That doesn’t look elegant; it’s déclassé. But seriously, PNoy’s winning another term is not a certainty. Like it or not, Binay is as popular as PNoy.

What compounds the situation for PNoy is that he will be overwhelmed by big problems in the last two years of his term: an energy crisis, worsening traffic, crumbling infrastructure, and other logistical nightmares. Add to the mix the threat of rising food prices, made more pronounced by disjointed food and agriculture policies. Some of these binding constraints are the by-product of growth; other constraints can be attributed to lack of foresight and preparation or to the resistance of some influential businessmen and politicians.

In a word, by 2016, the binding constraints will make PNoy less popular and the public less satisfied with his administration.

But should we fear Binay?  Not us. We can name some good women who can give Binay a big fight. And I am sure there will be countless Pinoys like me who will take a bullet to fight for any of these women crusaders. – Rappler.com

Filomeno S. Sta. Ana III is the coordinator of Action for Economic Reforms.