The Presidential term

Title

Language

English

Source

Volume XV (Issue No.1) January 1963

Year

1963

Subject

Constitutional amendments

Presidential terms of office

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

The need for amending the Constitution is long due. It is time to resolve the question of the pres idential term: four years with, of six years without reelection? I' THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM Dean Roscoe Pound, one of every conceivable situation America’s foremost jurists, once said: “The law must be stable, but it cannot stand still.” Another American, the late Mr. Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, also observ ed that, in the law, “there must be rest as well as mo tion.” These observations are significant, not so much for the apparent paradox they pose, as for their capsule des cription of the law’s nature. That the law should not fol low every passing whim and fad is too obvious to need em phasis here. But that it should be able to cope with every vital change in the na tional sphere is something on which there have been as ma ny differences of opinion as those who have expressed them. Briefly, one side in sists that the daw, as set down at one point in a people’s his tory, should be sufficiently comprehensive to apply to 46 that will later arise. On the other hand, the now more prevalent side theorizes that provisions should be made to re-mold the law to important changes in the body politic. To be sure, the observa tions above-cited .have little significance when one consi ders only legislative enact ments. They have particular application to so-called funda mental laws which-in»political systems as the Philippines would be found in written constitutions. Here, the first part of Dean Pound’s observation becomes cogent. Since, as ideally con ceived, a constitution should embody the basic structure of a nation’s political system, it would never be able to ful fill that function if changes of governments (or adminis trations) would be accompa nied by changes in some part of that constitution. If one Panorama set of elective officials would be able to impress upon the country their peculiar notions of how the government should be run, it is not too impro bable that one administration might yet come to power with anarchistic or totalita rian ideas. Of course, it is more possible that sober offi cers will get elected—or at least individuals with a mo dicum of patriotic feeling. Wisely, however, the^^mers of our own Constitution have not chosen to leave the choice of a political system to illconsidered and passing fa shions. Thus, an elaborate proce dure for amending the Con; stitution has prevented many administrations from forcing upon the people their pecu liar ideas of governing this country. It is only when the necessity for a change has become so compelling and has been so long called for that a sufficient majority may gather enough courage to alter what their predecessors saw fit to leave unchanged. At this mo ment, the second part of Dean Pound’s observation—"but it cannot stand still’’— reveals its logical necessity. One aspect of the constitutional structure which has long captured the attention of lawmakers and laymen alike is that governing the term of the President. The present provision gives the Chief Executive a four-year tenure with the right to seek re-election for a second term. It should be pointed out that this provision was not includ ed in the original constitu tion drafted by the delegates to the Constitutional Conven tion thirty years ago. Some rather frank observers con sider it as tailor-made for the late President Manuel L. Que zon. In 1940, when MLQ's term was about to expire, enthu siastic fellow party-members launched a campaign to have the Constitution amended so that he might continue in of fice. At that time, the provi sion on (he President gave him only 6 years without re election. The press took up the cue and finally convinced every man, woman, and child all over the country that it was for their good if MLQ stayed on. Needless to say, the Star of Baler soon found himself • faced with the pleas ant prospect of shining for JANUARY 1963 47 four more years in the nar tional firmament. But there was only one Quezon—as the people were soon to find out. Racked with tuberculosis, Manuel L. Que zon, first president of the Philippine C o mmonwealth, died in America with only half of his second term over. The late Sergio Osmefla took over until the late Manuel A. Roxas stepped in a$ the Re public’s first Chief Executive. Since Roxas, four men, in cluding the incumbent, have succeeded each other, only two of whom have been is elected to office. All those years, up to the present, the constitutional provision on the presidential term has undergone serious study. Very recently, news papers carried reports that, about the middle of this year, the original six-year term possibly without re-election will be reinstated. The in cumbent President has pru dently chosen to stay out of the picture by announcing that the amendment if push ed through and ratified by the electorate, should apply only to his successors. At this juncture, it‘ would be courting criticism to ex press opposition to the pro posed amendment. The po pular mind seems to have been molded into accepting its necessity as well as virtue. This should however be no reason to deter any intelligent discussion of the • issue for even in a democracy, it should be conceded that it is an intellectual elite which de termines ultimately what is good for this country. The majority should only be con vinced after the elite is con vinced. Briefly, then, these are the arguments for and againsst the present as well as the proposed terms for the Pres ident: For the four-7ear term with re-election — a good Pres ident will have a chance to continue after his first term while a bad President will only have four years within which to hold office. Against this argument is the proposition that no provision of law should be made for a bad man. Against the four-year term with re-election — the pros pect of seeking immediate, re election wifi hamper the Pres ident whn will be forced .tn spent! part of his time mend48 Panorama ing political fences at the ex pense of the country. This argument, incidentally, has another facet — that a sixyear term without re-election takes away the problem of having to court the people's favor at the risTt nt avoiding radical though meritorious policy decisions. For the six-year term — the period of six years is the •'ideal-—pnrind inacmiirh as it avoids the danger of cram ming lon^-range plans—inm four ~years at the same time averting the possibility- of dragging policy implrrrtenrnt.nn mtn a pp^d of eight years. . This argument, of course, has little logical basis since well-thought policies may well be implemented in less time, with equally good, if not better, results. For the six-year term, with out immediate re-election — while the incumbent will spend his entire first six years in working for the good of country without worrying about immediate re-election, the right to seek re-election after the lapse of six years since the end of his first term should give the people enough time to judge his performance and compare it with his successor-predecessor. Against the six-year term — the six years is too short for a good President and too long for a bad one. Apart from the argument that laws are made for good citizens, is the proposition which des troys this argument by main taining that even four is too long for a bad President. In any event, the argument is too specious to merit serious consideration. It should be evident at this juncture, that the focus of controversy is the provision allowing the imcurqbent tu run for re-election. Whether the term is four, six, or eh0t, years, the accompanying pro vision permitting immediate re-election sufficiently des troys any argument in sup port of any of these terms. Whether some presidents spend their entire term or only a part of it in courting the people's votes is not as important as the fact that they do use prerogatives of their office for personal rea sons. To a certain extent, this accounts for the preva lence of unethical, corrupt or outrigthly immoral practices of our public officials. JANUARY 1963 49 Quite apart from all these considerations however is the fact that the President of the Philippines has powers such as his foreign counterparts d« not have. Consequently, when an incumbent Chief Executive in the Phil ippines has his eye on the next presidential elect ions, the powers and preroga tives granted to his office by law become tempting wea pons to be used in wiping out all opposition to assure re-election. This factor should thus be considered the trfd provision of six years without immediate re-elect ion. For while the incum bent Chief Evecutive may not be able to run immedi ately after the end of his first term, he may still prepare for the time when he can, and to this end, he may well mis use his powers either by cam paigning actively for a fellow party-member to succeed him who will, of course, recipro cate by doing all he can to help his predecessor assume office again. One other factor should be taken into account. This is the problem of synchronizing elections. Even considering only the expense entailed by holding nationwide polls, the prospect of re-ordering the periods of election to syn chronize with the presidential polls is an easier alternative to adopt. If the election of the President were to be changed, that of the lesser officials would have to fol low. This requires further amendment of the Constitu tion as well as of various laws governing terms of of fice of the different public officials. The task is not thus as easy as it sounds. The most difficult part of the job has unfortunately not been com pleted yet — if one gives the proper authorities the benefit of the doubt that it has been started at all. This is the task of sitting down and examining the necessity for an amendment, its virtues as well as its defects, and, as a logical consequence, the good or bad it can do for the country. For while there is good reason to say that any term will do for a well-select ed President put into office by a well-informed electorate, there is little reason to con clude that “things will take care of themselves.” On the SO Panorama by feeding the former with a distorted image of the gov ernment and its functions. The duly-elected represent atives of the people have therefore the duty of setting aside partisan and petty dif ferences bearing in mind only that political fortunes may arise and fall but the Cons titution — repository of a na tion’s aspirations and goals — remains as that nation’s safeguard against tyranny and anarchy. — Ferdinand s. Tinio A BORROWED HISTORY? An Asian savant has truly said that a nation’s strength lies in its history, its past. And he adds, we, in Asia, must make up our minds that we cannot borrow other people’s history, and that if we stifle our own, we are committing suicide. When you borrow things that do not belong to your life, they only serve to crush your life. We must show those who have over us that we have the strength of moral power in ourselves, the power to suffer for truth. Where we have nothing to show, we only have to beg. — Tagore. January 1963 51

Media