You are on page 1of 6

Are you in favor of Charter-Change or Not?

Once again, the matter of a charter change is being floated around at the highest
levels of governance. It can send signals that what the powers that be really want is to
reduce the fulcrum of power one of perpetuity with PGMA as its most favored patron.
I. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Philippine Constitution is a dynamic embodiment of the aspirations and
ideals of the Filipinos. Although such dynamism is often clouded by conservatism
among some practitioners in the legal arena, the fundamental law of the land itself
provides at least three(3) mechanisms for revisions and or amendments so that it will
continue to be relevant and significant.
First is peoples initiative. Unfortunately, this is rarely resorted to because of
the supposedly insurmountable legal and logistical difficulties.
Second is the Constitutional Convention, wherein delegates are elected to
draft the proposed changes.
And third is the Constituent Assembly, wherein the House of Representatives
and Senate constitute themselves into a deliberative assembly to draft and propose
changes in the Constitution.
Along this line, several attempts to introduce changes in the present Philippine
constitution has been undertaken in the past. Former Speaker Ramon Mitra, Sen. John
Osmea, Former President Ramos, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., and even the
deposed President Joseph Estrada also tried to tinker with the Constitution. All of their
efforts however were either met with formidable resistance or simply fizzled out in the
complex environment of Philippine politics.
At present, the issue of Charter Change was revived again. Among the prime actors
this time are some members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. A parallel
movement in the civil society, which has traditionally been opposed to Charter Change,
was born amidst the advocacy for federalism and parliamentary form of government.
Thus, an impetus for significant social change through the Constitution was generated,
also perceived to be opportune and timely.
But such perception was met with opposition. Among the most prominent arguments
from the opposition to charter change are the following: it is not timely (given the
present socio-political context), it is designed to postpone elections and prolong stay in
office by the present regime, and it will open the floodgates to social disturbance and
division.
No one seems to recall how then Speaker Jose De Venecia was batting for a
charter change under the concept of a shift to a parliamentary form of government. As
to whether the federalism proposal is woven from the same thread is still unknown at
this juncture. The latest developments point to the fact that a pattern of withdrawal now
occurs with the original signatories withdrawing their support to Senate Resolution No.
10. What seems to be the preferred constitutional route for a charter change is the
convening of a Constituent Assembly and both House of Congress seem agreed.
Certainly, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales has always been optimistic that such
change can still happen in PGMAs term but enough of Ripleys.


Malacanang has to disabuse our minds that there will no such thing as a surgical
amendment to the Constitution or that it will sneak in amendments to the new Charter
that will in effect, extend the term limits of the president. This seems to be the single
stumbling block to the success of such a Palace-sponsored move of a shift to a federal
government. In the same breadth, it seems a mere ploy the official position that a
federal form of government will address or in fact put an end to the Mindanao conflict.
There is inherent danger in this kind of analysis since the creation of a Bangsamoro
state will always undergo long period of debate and in the end, the Palace will not have
to accede to what they will propose. There has never been an end to this problem of
peace nor can it be micromanaged via a federal government system. For as long as
Mindanao heavily subsidizes Luzon and for as long as Mindanao is always
shortchanged by government in terms of social dividends, the Mindanao conflict
always is here to stay. More than the political dimension, the economic side of the
ledger ought to be carefully studied and resolved in their favor.Consider for a moment
that Manila would be the new US Washington, D.C. and the Bangsamoro is actually one
of 11 federal states, meaning, at long last, we have Bangsamoro as a Juridical Entity in
the whole scheme of things. More authority will be dissipated down to the local set up
thereby allowing Mindanao as similar other federal states a decentralized form of
governance. How far will decentralization go? How far will centralization allow? There
will be more questions asked than answered once we go for a charter change. First,
there will be massive revisions in the various Articles contained in the 1987 Constitution.
There will be amendments that will undergo long debates unless the tyranny of number
will the prevailing intellectual culture if only to railroad such a move.

II. MY POINTS OF VIEW
For the topic of: Are you for or against Charter change (Cha-cha)? Our 1987
Constitution is not perfect. So, like many well-meaning citizens, I am in favor of
perfecting it. But like everything else, the right thing should be done in the right way at
the right time and for the right reasons. Process, timing and motive are as important as
substance.
The 1987 Constitution is the longest of all Philippine Constitution. Criticism
includes the following:
1. It is Verbose, ambiguous, and very long with 18 articles. The US constitution
has only seven Articles.
2. It does not represent the will of the people because it was written by
appointed framers by President Corazon Aquino and not elected by the
people. It is written in a hurry 4 months-to normalize the transition from
dictatorial to democratic rule.
3. It includes the topics that need not to be placed in the constitution such as
sports, drugs and love.
4. It is no longer responsive to the many changes that happened in the country
and to the global community.
But changing the Constitution at this point of time is not proper. Yes, there are
imperfections of the present Constitution, but in a deeper view of the issue. The
following are the reasons for not making me favor of the Cha-Cha in PGMAs regime:
1.Charter change is not just a shameless act to promote the legislators self-
interest of staying in power but also a despicable act of selling the countrys sovereignty
to the highest bidder. Through the years, pro-globalization legislators have tried to
change the Constitution to allow foreigners to own land, as well as provide them the
right to own mass media organizations which is currently exclusive to Filipinos.
Freedom-loving Filipinos should oppose such moves and expose the legislators for who
they really are. The Philippines is not just a country of sorrows but also a land of
miracles. Unless the people remain vigilant, the pro-charter change proponents will get
what they want. This is not the first time, after all, that laws are interpreted to favor the
interests of the powers-that-be.
2. The agenda behind charter change is mainly economic but the political
dimension there is also the lifting of term limits. The President badly needs this to avoid
litigation proceedings once she steps down in 2010 and becomes a private citizen who
is not anymore immune from suit. She is well aware that cause-oriented groups are just
waiting for this to file charges against her in court for various incidences of corruption
and extra-judicial killings, among many other crimes against the people. The long and
short of it is simple: The President benefits greatly if she stays in power beyond 2010,
and the holding of presidential elections by that time could get in the way of that.
The right time and reason: Indeed, many provisions of our present verbose
Constitution need revisiting. However, a shift to the parliamentary system has gotten
harsh negative reaction because of the nagging suspicion that it is being misused for
term extension. Per the latest SWS survey on June 19-22, 70 percent of our people are
against extending the reign of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In my opinion, this is not the
time yet to be in favor of Cha-Cha.
We are aware of the topic and issue about politics, but one thing comes into my
mind while doing this reactionwhatever form of government and constitution we had in
present or in the future, if our leaders tend to be corrupt and is Egocentric or with self-
interest, even if it was the best Constitution ever-- its worthless. The leaders are
essential in this country. A leader with the love of the people, with the progress of
his/her own country. And of course, without our cooperationas the citizens of this
country, still its useless. Therefore, it doesnt matter what form of government or
constitution we had. What matters most, absolutely are the people. The one who serve
and those who are being governed. Thats the fact and issue that most of the Filipinos
cannot recognized.

You might also like