from: www.inquirer.net

[SIZE="3"]Gloria’s sword[/SIZE]

Editorial
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:01:00 12/02/2009

NOTHING PREVENTS PRESIDENT MACAPAGAL-Arroyo from running for a congressional seat, except the higher laws of propriety and morality. To be sure, she used moral language to explain her decision not to step down from “public service.” But because of the many attempts in the recent past, attempts she must have masterminded, to change the system of government through a people’s initiative or through a House-only constituent assembly, the President’s candidacy for the second district of Pampanga is seen by many people in amoral terms. She either wants a measure of immunity after she leaves Malacañang, or she wants to strengthen her grip on power.

She can do both by effecting a transition to a parliamentary form of government. In truth, however, and given the political realities, it will be difficult for a rookie representative, even a former president, to drive Charter change from a seat in the chamber.

We have raised the threshold question before: If she could not effect a revision of the Constitution while she served as president, how can Ms Arroyo reasonably expect to change the Constitution as merely one of over 250 congressmen?

The idea that she will use her seat in Congress to manipulate congressional dynamics from the inside, in order to force a transition to a parliamentary form of government, reflects a commonly held perception. The notion that she will succeed, however, depends on the willing suspension of disbelief in the following fundamental assumptions:

• Historically, and regardless of political party, a new president always forms a new majority coalition in the pliable House; there is no reason whatsoever to expect that the next president, whoever he or she may be, will not enjoy the same advantage.

• Traditionally, the Senate always constitutes itself as a countervailing institution, ready to follow its own way or create its own path; there is no reason whatsoever to think that, given the strong anti-Arroyo backlash, most of the new senators will not be unsympathetic, even hostile, to Congresswoman Arroyo and her plans.

• Electorally, the public mood is always a determining factor; there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that today’s ugly mood, today’s grim resolve to undo the corruption and the violence of the last nine years, will not continue to sustain the next administration and make self-interested attempts to tinker with the Constitution downright irrelevant.

Given these assumptions, can we now say Congress has been made safe for Ms Arroyo?

Not exactly, because of the one provision in the Constitution that has not only defined President Arroyo’s very presidency but made it possible in the first place. Article XI, Section 3, (3) reads: “A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.”

The Constitution handed a strong minority in the House a heavy weapon; it effectively suspended the rule of the majority in impeachment cases. This was the weapon the opposition used to impeach President Joseph Estrada in 2000 (successfully); the same weapon a minority led by the Nationalist People’s Coalition wielded to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide in 2003 (unsuccessfully, because the Senate immediately adjourned together with the House, thus preventing the impeachment papers from being transmitted). This provision was the same weapon the pro-Arroyo congressmen, beginning in 2005, successfully campaigned (through such ruses as Rep. Edcel Lagman’s “prejudicial questions” stratagem) to keep hidden in its sheath, through the post-Garci turmoil.

It is this provision that may be a cunning ex-president’s true target. A three-fourths or a two-thirds majority may be out of reach, but a one-third minority is eminently within her grasp. In her hands, it can prove to be an effective leverage against the next administration, or a source of political blackmail.

Someone once referred to the “terrible sword” of impeachment. We should not be surprised if the President who came to power by that sword, will stake her future on that self-same sword.