Will JDV Let Us Down, Again?

The Long View : The Speaker's position

Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service

ON NOV. 10, 2003, Speaker Jose de Venecia rose and delivered a remarkable speech. His apparently extemporaneous remarks were made in response to a parliamentary inquiry made in order to resolve a political crisis. The political crisis was caused by the desire of the House minority to impeach the Chief Justice. Those against the impeachment argued that the constitutional ban on more than one impeachment attempt a year had been violated. The challenge was elevated to the Supreme Court, which upheld the position of the objectors. The House minority insisted that the impeachment should proceed. The nation became alarmed at the prospect of an insistent House transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate, which might result in the executive department having to use its police power to enforce the Supreme Court ruling.

I believe that De Venecia never received enough credit for the manner in which he resolved that potential constitutional crisis, and the eloquence of his remarks on that November day. He demonstrated genuine leadership, a genuine gift for positively responding to public opinion, and proved his ability to arrive at, and defend, a democratic consensus. The man, both as Jose de Venecia and as Speaker of the House, is yet again reaching-if he hasn't already reached-a defining moment in his political career.

In recent days, the Speaker, observers claim, has been showing signs of great stress and distress. The normally placid, often bubbly Speaker (who can claim the unusual distinction of being the one man in Philippine politics all the professional politicians seem to like; and really, I have yet to encounter a person who has met the Speaker personally, and has gone away not liking the man) has of late been said to be curt, even angry. His public pronouncements, in the words of a colleague, have become increasingly "shrill." It must certainly be unpleasant for a man who has built a career on achieving compromise and consensus to see the country, and his House, so divided.

In the great division among our people that took place in recent months, it was the Speaker who provided the "foot soldiers," so to speak, at the command of former President Ramos when the latter decided to support the President. In truth, what Ramos possessed at the time was an impeccable sense of timing, and a residual prestige. It would depend, however, on the Speaker to hold the line and man the trenches with loyal troops and efficient lieutenants in what has become a political battle of attrition.

The Speaker has, so far, done exactly that, a remarkable feat considering how unpopular the President has always been with his Lakas party. The Lakas members in the House, supported in turn by the Lakas network in local governments, backed the President to achieve parliamentary rule for the House and federalism for the provinces. For a time, it seemed the President would be held hostage by Lakas, supporting parliamentary government and federalism.

In recent weeks, though, the President has increasingly displayed signs of independence, which included dropping hints-such as her statement to Korina Sanchez during an interview-that she has never publicly advocated a unicameral legislature. She has ordered the creation of a Constitutional Consultative Commission to act as a counterweight to the desires and constitutional enthusiasm of the House. In other words, she has turned the situation around to her advantage, and regained what presidents traditionally enjoy over the House: leverage.

In fighting for her political life, the President nailed not hers, but Ramos' and De Venecia's colors to the mast, and proceeded to continue sailing the ship in the direction of enemy fire. Furthermore, she has tied both Ramos and the Speaker to the mast, which means it is they who are getting shot at, while the President continues to command the show from the comfort of her cabin. While Ramos has already done all he could-you can only throw your support behind someone once-the Speaker is still being called upon to marshal the troops in the House, and for what? Whatever their view about the President, the majority of the people want the impeachment process to continue. The Speaker might have been able to justify fighting "creeping impeachment" by "stealthily railroading" the throwing out of the impeachment, but his unpopularity and that of his parliamentary cause would only be worth it if the President did her part by gambling big on achieving constitutional change. She has done the opposite: she has gambled small, and it may be that her real bet is on herself.

This leaves the Speaker without a parliament and without popularity, and heading a party whose grip on the President is beginning to relax (not least because of the President's tacticians, as the recent gambit of her personal, pet party Kampi, and the road user's tax demonstrated). The President has not helped deliver what the Speaker needs: a national consensus on Charter change. Perhaps, the Speaker needs to find other allies; neither he nor his party will necessarily go down with the President if her ship sinks; but they may emerge too shattered and discredited to obtain what they want all along: a parliamentary future for themselves.

In the second week of September, Congress goes on recess for a month. Both the minority and majority need to resolve the question of impeachment before then. Should the Speaker deliver by throwing out impeachment by then? He will reap a whirlwind someone else sowed; and worse, he will never ever be prime minister. At least not until 2010. His best chance to be prime minister is to let the process proceed. That will gain him good will, and the claim to statesmanship.