Official Website of Dr. Jose V. Abueva - Integrity of Filipino National Artists and National Scientists

Main Menu

Home

Commentaries

Postings

Links

About JVA

Writings/Publications

Newsflash

Public Affairs: a Boholano View

By Jose “Pepe” Abueva

The Best Time for Charter Change is Now:With President Benigno S. Aquino III.

“The President’s legitimacy and high popular trust will make his initiative to change the Constitution most welcome and the least suspicious.”

Wrong time for ChaCha?

In its editorial on July 8, the Philippine Daily Inquirer declared it was the wrong time to consider Charter change, and gave these reasons.

There was no mandate to President Benigno S. Aquino to change the Constitution. His election even meant rejection of former President Arroyo’s failed ChaCha initiative which she has revived in her new proposal as a Representative. It would be distracting to President Aquino whose priority should be to push his legislative agenda. Better to have his proposed commission to study the need for Charter change, and to effect the change in connection with the elections in 2013.

No, now is the best time!

On the contrary, I strongly believe that now is the best time. The initiative for Charter change is a supreme act of the national leadership. Our new President’s legitimacy and high popular trust (88 per cent according to the latest survey of the Social Weather Stations) will make his initiative to change the Constitution most welcome and the least suspicious.

As a student of politics and governance, I believe it is the primordial duty of President Benigno S. Aquino III to initiate policy and institutional changes in our Constitution by asking Congress to act soon after as he settles down in his presidency. No need for a commission as he has said, or a referendum to consult the people on the question.

A constitutional convention would be the most acceptable mode of Charter change because of lingering distrust of Congress. Why? Unfortunately, with some exceptions, our representatives and senators are no longer held in high regard as they used to be. Right or wrong, most of them are seen as self-serving, untrustworthy, and ineffectual as political leaders.

At the latest 2013 would be a good time for a national plebiscite on the proposed constitutional amendments.

Under PGMA Charter change was demonized, trivialized, and junked.

On hindsight, I believe that under President Arroyo Charter Change from 2004 onward suffered mortally by her sponsorship of it, and by the wrong method of a Constituent Assembly without the Senate, or by the controversial People’s Initiative. On the whole, therefore, the attempts at Charter change suffered from wrong timing.

In 2006 the leaders of the People’s Initiative (PI) to change our presidential system to a parliamentary system gathered the required voters’ signatures in each and all the congressional districts and in the whole nation. But the Commission on Elections refused to validate the signatures. The Supreme Court by a majority vote of 8 to 7 denied the PI leaders’ petitions to compel the COMELEC to validate the signatures so that the proposed amendments could be submitted to a national plebiscite. To me, the PI exercise showed that the people are not really the sovereign source of government authority as stated in the Constitution (Article II. Section 1).

Despite many resolutions filed by its members, Congress failed jointly to propose amendments to the Constitution from 1996 to early 2005. President Arroyo formed the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change and appointed its 55 members. I was chosen to chair the Commission.

We held regional consultations and then came up with our proposals for a shift to a parliamentary system, for creating autonomous territories or regions in transition to establishing a federal republic, and for liberalizing the constitutional provisions on foreign participation in our development. Except for helping to popularize and mainstream the ideas and issues of Charter change, the serious PI exercise also failed.

Charter Change can be our new President’s foremost and enduring legacy.

For our popular and reformist new President his historic initiative would enable him to leave a major legacy of basic and enduring innovations. And also of correcting the now well known basic flaws in the 1987 Constitution, also remembered as the “Cory Constitution.”

Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino by his heroic defense of democracy and martyrdom hastened the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship. President Corazon Aquino led the nation in ending the Marcos dictatorship at the EDSA revolt and restoring our democracy. In his own time President Benigno S. Aquino III can reform and revitalize our democracy through his transforming leadership and historic Charter change.

If he takes this supreme challenge, before his term ends in 2016 we can be hopeful and confident that in due course our reformed constitutional policies and political institutions will enable our country to sustain our political, economic, and social development and modernization. We can institutionalize good governance and hasten nation-building.

********

Dr. Jose V. Abueva is U.P. Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Public Administration, and former U.P. president (1987-1993). He is President and Professor at Kalayaan College in Quezon City which he founded with fellow U.P. professors in 2000. He was Secretary of the 1971 Constitutional Convention and Chairman of the Legislative-Executive Military Bases Council under President Corazon Aquino. He also chaired the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change.

Before he was elected president of U.P. he served the United Nations University for ten years (1977-1987). He finished high school at the Central Visayan Institute in Jagna, Bohol in 1947, then obtained his A.B, (Arts-Law) cum laude from U.P. From the University of Michigan he got his M.A. in Public Administration and Ph.D. in Political Science.

Integrity of Filipino National Artists and National Scientists

Written by Administrator

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Integrity of Filipino National Artists and National Scientists

Kudos to Filipino artists, shame on Filipino scientists—Flor Lacanilao

Newsbreak, 19 August 2009

Whereas Filipino artists are not only busy with their artistic work but also advance national art and defend its institutions, Filipino scientists have been largely concerned only with doing research to advance their name in science. Perhaps Jose Rizal was thinking of our scientists when he said, “Our talented men have died bequeathing to us nothing more than the fame of their name.”

The naming of National Artists and National Scientists in the Philippines has been continually threatened or beset with fake artists and scientists. Surprisingly, however, our respected artists have always protested such farce that dishonors art; but at all times that such fraud is done on science, our scientists have been silent.

The past and recent uproar in the selection of National Artists is a healthy sign of our artists’ concern for art. It happens when the selection did not meet the agreed process, or the candidate did not deserve the title, or both. It is an admirable demonstration of defending the profession and its national institutions.

Recent media commentaries from the artist community, editorials, and opinion columns show the lack of established selection process, definition of art, or criteria for judging artistic work. Whereas disputes with the selection process may be resolved in time because these are local procedural problems, perhaps it is more difficult for artists to agree on a definition of art. This may be true also in establishing an accepted procedure for judging art work.

For example, computer search will give you various definitions of art and a lot of disagreement. A recent legal review shows arguments why judges should not judge art. And evaluation studies by educators in Europe doubt the reliability of art teachers judging works of art. Despite these obstacles, however, respected Filipino artists have always shown not only their dedication to their trade but also their vigilance and united opposition against any actions making a travesty of Philippine art. On the other hand, Filipino scientists have remained mute when nonscientists are named National Scientists, which happens every time the Award is given. There have been no protests from the science community or media commentaries from editorial and opinion columns. Unlike in the case of art and artists, the criteria for defining science and judging a research output — the work of a scientist — are well established. Yet over 30 National Scientists have been named, but most of whom are nonscientists or second-rate scientists.

The scientists’ silence is the main reason for a situation like that — increasing number of nonscientist National Scientists. In addition, their failure to promote the public’s understanding of science has made the media people incapable of making commentaries on anomalies in science. This situation is unfortunate because despite the importance of some fields to national progress, only science is essential in saving the Philippines. These two — the scientists’ silence and media’s incapability to report science anomalies — enable nonscientists to escape public criticism and to continue holding important science positions to the detriment of Philippine science and education.

Why are columnists allowed to criticize politicians with bad words, but media would not print valid criticisms of fake scientists? The reason is public ignorance of science, which is the fault of scientists. Hence, Filipino scientists are the root or basic cause of our national problems. Who the real scientists are can easily be determined by their research publications that meet internationally accepted criteria, or published in journals covered in the major indexes of Thomson ISI. Number of publications in these journals is used in ranking nations (e.g., evaluation studies published in the leading journals Science and Nature) and ranking universities (e.g., Academic Ranking of World Universities, http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/EN2008.htm ). But these widely-used, 50-year old criteria have been ignored in selecting National Scientists.

How can nonscientist National Scientists serve as role models or mentors for the next generation of Filipino scientists? The younger generation of Filipino researchers is the only hope to strengthen our science institutions, which have been undermined by the past and present generations of Filipino scientists.

(Fortunately, unlike before, today's graduate students, by search engines now available, can find out whom among their teachers and officials are scientists — have properly published research papers. This sends a message to the faculty and institution to insure that graduate students get the proper training they deserve. With the information accessible in the internet, they are by themselves learning about research and development — the meaning of scientific publications and their importance to national progress.)

All developed countries recognize the importance of science in reducing poverty, raising income levels, and economic transformation. And the poor state of Philippine science is the main reason why an increasing number of neighbor countries have been leaving us behind. When will our scientists take a stand to save the country or set an example for the next generation of scientists?

They can learn a lesson or two from Filipino artists.

Flor Lacanilao is a retired professor of marine science at the University of the Philippines.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Design by KC Web Development Team

Top