Inquirer Editorial

Editorial : Moving forward

THE "BLUEPRINT for a Viable Philippines" is not a perfect document; it certainly wasn't intended to be. What it is is a work in progress: "It merely puts forward in broad strokes the basis of what the proponents perceive to be the primary steps that can be taken for the country to survive, to enable the citizenry to pull themselves out of the deep rut they are now in."

As we can see, even its language can be out-of-breath at times. But, at least, it is a positive contribution to the on-again, off-again public dialogue on reforming the system. The product of many roundtable discussions, the Blueprint was written by several eminent members of the University of the Philippines community.

It prescribes strong medicine; that is one of its strengths. For instance, it calls the policy of allotting "a growing portion" of the budget to pay for principal and interest of the country's debt stock "slow suicide" and "immoral." It recommends a "comprehensive debt audit" to uncover the "hidden history of our indebtedness" and a renegotiation of our official debt, "with the end in view of securing a minimum 5-year relief from interest payments."

But the Blueprint also and essentially prescribes the same kind of medicine for the country's many problems: that is one of its weaknesses. Many of its recommendations assume or call outright for active government intervention. Symptomatic of this weakness is its placebo of a recommendation for what it says is ailing Philippine mass media: It calls for a Board of Governors for Media "that will function as media's own watchdog and regulatory body."

Surely, the solution to some of our problems does not involve a strong (or in the Blueprint's Nietzschean language, "willful") state; sometimes, we need less government, not more. (That, in fact, may be the only way for other parts of the private sector to grow in maturity.)

But taken altogether, the Blueprint allows us to look beyond the sordid scandals that consume us, to an alternative future bright with the promise of possibilities.

That is a quality lacking in the Ramos-De Venecia proposals for Charter change. Not because the ideas themselves have no merit, but because the ideas have come to be identified with the men behind them. And because the ideas have been sold as a "graceful exit" for the President. That is a pity. We believe, for instance, that the opportunities a parliamentary system provides for a non-disruptive change of government, through say a vote of no confidence, deserve a more thorough discussion.

Another way for the country to move forward is through the (admittedly) increasingly more unpopular idea of a Truth Commission. If there is anything that Environment Secretary Michael Defensor, a close Arroyo ally, has proven, with his hiring of an American forensic expert and the ensuing controversy that surrounded his presentation on Friday, it is the need for a neutral analysis of the Hello Garci tapes.

We think it strange that an opposition that is willing to accept new witnesses who have surfaced after it filed its amended impeachment complaint is now saying that it is too late for Defensor to offer an analysis of the tapes. If anything, pro-impeachment politicians should thank Defensor, for putting the spotlight back on the tapes. As we've said before: It's the tapes, stupid. Whatever its limitations, however, Defensor's expert analysis cannot be taken at face value.

But a Truth Commission can conduct an investigation that all parties can accept. It need not be an expensive superfluity; we believe that even a short-term Commission with, say, Christian Monsod, Haydee Yorac and Harriet Demetriou as members, can be credible, competent—and decisive. We believe—because we must—in the power of good men and women to rise above even the most unpromising circumstances.

Not least, the participation of more political movements, like Kapatiran, in the public discourse can also help provide a way forward. Veteran political operators may look askance at such groups, which place ethical considerations ahead of practical concerns. Such groups certainly look like apolitical fish out of very political water. But that may be the point. We need more Filipinos who, if they had to choose, would choose faithfulness to their principles over unprincipled success.