TITLE: Constitutional Authoritarianism

BACKGROUND:

In 1965, Ferdinand E. Marcos was elected president, and in 1976, Philippine congress

passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to change the 1935 constitution.

Marcos won the re-election in 1969, in a bid boosted campaign overspending and funds. Election

of the delegates to the constitutional convention were held on 20 November 1970, and the

convention began formally on June 1 1971, with former president Carlos P. Garcia being elected

as convention president. Unfortunately, he died, and was succeed by another former president,

Diosdado Macapagal.

ANALYSIS:

The concept of constitutional authoritarianism describes a particularity of elected

authoritarianism. In that sense, authoritarian regimes can tolerate a limited space of freedom with

restricted elections. However, those regimes are only subject to a veneer of constitutionally that

does not result in real constraints on the government.

Mr. Marcos himself, according to both admirers and critics, has ruled with finesse, distracting

many Filipinos with a steady stream of political promises, referendums and fiestas, including

staging the Miss Universe beauty pageant and a heavyweight boxing championship bout between

Mohammed Ali and Joe Frazier in Manila. An American acquaintance, who has watched Mr.

Marcos for years, calls him a “magician” who has shrewdly taken the measure of his Filipino

constituency.
 Constitutional Authoritarianism

From the pen of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruperto Martin flowed the term

"constitutional authoritarianism". I had difficulty understanding the theory, let alone in accepting

its legal consequence. Justice Martin, deciding a bunch of related cases in the Supreme Court

about three decades ago, defined the theory as the authority of then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos "to

propose amendments to the constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly".

Justice Martin thus, effectively answered all those who sought to challenge, as without a

foundation in the fundamental law, a bevy of constitutional amendments written by the Apo. The

fact had to be considered though that when Marcos drafted the proposed charter changes, there

was no functioning legislature. And, let me hasten to add, it happened during Martial Law when

presidential decrees were deemed at par with legislative enactments.

In addition to the fact that there was yet no national assembly convened at that time, one

proposal was, from the viewpoint of people holding government positions, most difficult to

refuse. It was well nigh impossible for them not to bite the bait. Generally speaking, no politician

would turn down an offer to continue in power, more so, if that was achieved without going

through the expensive process called election. As Marcos wrote it, concerned elected officials

"shall continue as presently constituted x x x". In other words, those holding elective offices, if

the Marcos proposals got the peoples' nod in a referendum, would remain in power. As he cast

the scenario, most, if not all, officials supported the amendments.

I happen to recollect Justice Martin's phrase in the light of the current noise generated by

the Consultative Commission of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Presently,
 so much brouhaha is heaped upon the work of Pres. Arroyo's Con-com, the loudest din of

which has seemingly nothing to do with substance. The uproar dwells on the suggestion that our

officials take a base, so to speak. Save for a few rara avis who, either out of genuine confidence

or for show, desire for a democratic mandate, our elected leaders throughout the land are agog on

the no-el proposal, in much the same frenzied way their counterparts salivated when Marcos

dangled before their lustful eyes the devious scheme to extend their hold of government seats.

History is not quite repeated, though. When Marcos proposed some amendments to the

constitution, our country was in a crisis. Only the presidency was dynamic. Naturally, the

constitutional methods of proposing amendments could not be availed of. He took it upon

himself to write the proposed changes and set the mechanism for their submission to the people.

The present situation is different. It was bad enough to have a dictator who could not act

normally in a crisis, it is worse to have a president in a normal situation act as if we were in a

crisis by assembling the consultative commission purportedly to suggest amendments to the

constitution. Admittedly, many Con Com members are nationalistic but, no matter their

patriotism, it can not escape conclusion that their collective product is as if written by the hand of

Pres. Arroyo herself.

In the ensuing days, we shall witness the concerted effort of Malacañang and friends

escalate. Their strategy is to canalize the thought of our people away from the no-el garbage.

They will focus in making us believe that the presidential system allows such events as "Jose

Pidal", "Hello, Garci" and the "Fertilizer scam" to take place. Under the orchestration of the
palace, spin doctors will condition our minds into thinking that when our present officials remain

in power

under a parliamentary system, they will suddenly become most honest and incorrupt. Oh

yes, propagandists will try to skirt the truth that the proposed charter changes, really, are

products of a corrupt personification of "constitutional authoritarianism" seeking perpetuity in

office.