ON Aug. 29, 2005, I wrote the following (“The Speaker’s position,” Philippine Daily Inquirer), as an appeal to Speaker Jose de Venecia to begin weaning himself away from the apron strings of President Arroyo. What I wrote bears repeating, again, as much of what I predicted at the time has come to pass.
***
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 a minority of congressmen to impeach the chief justice. Opponents of the attempt to impeach the chief justice argued that the constitutional ban on not more than one impeachment attempt a year, had been violated. The challenge was elevated to the Supreme Court, which upheld the position of those objecting. The House minority insisted 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. While I have done my fair share of taunting when it comes to the speaker, I do not believe subjecting him to an inflexible skepticism or a disrespectful hostility, is either useful, or called for, now. He is, once more, reaching, if he hasn’t already reached, a defining moment yet again in his personal political career, and as speaker of the House.
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 of our people that took place in recent months, it was the speaker who put foot soldiers, so to speak, at the command of former President Ramos when he 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 on the speaker, however, to hold the line, and man the trenches in what has become a political battle of attrition, with loyal troops and efficient lieutenants.
The speaker has, so far, done exactly that, a remarkable feat considering how unpopular the president has always been with the party. The members of Lakas in the House supported, in turn, by the Lakas network in local government, supported 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 includes 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 that will 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 gained 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 can do — 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 public wants 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 the unpopularity both of himself and 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 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 necessary go down with the president if her ship sinks; but they may emerge too shattered and discredited to obtain what they wanted all along: Not security of tenure for the president, but a parliamentary future for themselves.
***
But as we know, the speaker continued to support the president, until the speaker’s son got fed up and the ensuing confrontation provoked, in turn, the ongoing showdown between the president and the speaker. His instincts, as a politician, will be to compromise, but this is the point of no return. Not just for him, but for his party. If the speaker stands his ground, his Lakas-CMD party can once again be the main player in the 2010 elections.
If the speaker lacks the will to fight, not just he, but his party, will go down in defeat.
