For sure, there are people who agree with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano that the nation, with its seriously damaged institutions, needs a reset for a clean slate.
A snap election, however, is not the answer. Not only because there’s no law for this, and we’re no longer under a dictatorship, which allowed Ferdinand Marcos to pit himself against Corazon Aquino in the 1986 snap election.
The more fundamental reason is that our electoral system itself is a major part of the corruption sinkhole into which our nation has fallen.
It starts with the fielding of candidates. Cayetano proposes the resignation of President Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte and all members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
In the unlikely event that they all do so – presumably with Cayetano and his sister Pia themselves leading the move, as suggested by their naughty brother – there must be a stringent requirement that no one related to the resigned officials, up to the fourth degree of blood or marriage ties, can run for the vacated positions.
Otherwise we will simply have the same dog with a different collar, a cosmetic change, with the same surnames and the same MOs for robbing the nation blind.
A snap election will merely provide yet another opportunity for opaque fundraising, with billions again funneled into one of the biggest and most efficient laundromats for dirty money in our looted country: campaign finance.
It will provide yet another opportunity for venal politicians to use taxpayers’ money for buying votes, for claiming credit for state-funded dole-outs or ayuda used for personal promotion.
Looting politicians thrive on voters who are perpetually dependent on political patrons for cash handouts, endorsements for medical care, jobs with hardly any qualifications required, and help during emergencies or special occasions such as weddings, baptisms and funerals – kasal, binyag, libing.
Thanks to the flood control scandal, there is heightened public awareness that the ayuda and patronage doled out by the thieves are bankrolled by every taxpayer.
The snap election proposal, with its call for mass resignations, was dead in the water. Malacañang summed up a common reaction: ‘wishful thinking.’ Even Cayetano’s allies in the DDS dismissed it as an ‘impossible dream.’
Maybe Cayetano was inspired by leadership changes in other countries now being similarly rocked by anti-corruption protests.
A common feature of these protests is that they are mostly leaderless, with Gen Zs playing a prominent role. And why not, since they are the ones inheriting the rotten systems developed by their elders.
Another feature is the exposure of the lifestyles of officials who are living beyond their means. This openness, transparency and swiftness in the exchange of information, which digital technology has made possible, is a trend that the Independent Commission for Infrastructure is bucking impressively.
There are speculations that the ICI may finally relent in conducting open hearings, but only after resigned speaker Martin Romualdez and all the senators implicated in the flood control mess (plus Zaldy Co, in case he comes out of hiding and decides to return home) have faced the commission. And after the nerve that Benjie Magalong struck, plus the home that he stumbled into in his short-lived stint as investigator, have been decisively eliminated from ICI scrutiny.
Before all this, opening the ICI hearings to the public will be nothing but wishful thinking, like the mass resignation prior to snap elections.
Our system does not allow those swift political changes arising from the anti-corruption protests now spreading across the planet. We can’t even get rid pronto of lawmakers who have been implicated in the latest corruption scandal.
Even if they are indicted for plunder and held without bail, they can continue serving as lawmakers until they are convicted with finality – which could be after 20 years. Years before a final ruling, they can plead cognitive decline and exemption from prosecution. Or they can move for dismissal of the case due to ‘inordinate delay’ in the legal process.
Because of the state of our legal system, people often think the best they can get in terms of swift justice is watching public hearings on high crimes and seeing the big fish wriggling in the net. Being leviathans, no net can hold them too long, and they will likely wriggle free eventually. They can swim their way back to elective office, possibly to a post higher than the one they occupied when they were indicted.
People who had expected the ICI to pick up where the congressional probes left off have shifted their expectations for open proceedings to the new ombudsman, Jesus Crispin Remulla.
Since the retirement of Samuel Martires as ombudsman, Remulla had been bruited about as the strongest contender for the post. While Remulla will certainly coordinate with the ICI, the Constitution mandates the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct probes on its own in cases involving public accountability and betrayal of public trust.
These are what people dismayed over large-scale corruption want: an open and efficient probe, indictments, prosecution, conviction and punishment of crooks, in a process that complies with the constitutional mandate for speedy trial. Structural reforms to excise the rot and prevent its return. And a citizenry enlightened and enraged enough by the scandal to pick a better set of officials in the 2028 elections.
There is no quick fix to our nation’s problems. Without institutional reforms and an informed electorate, a snap election will just be a band-aid solution, which will open opportunities for more corruption.