Musings on Charter Change

One of the reasons why I’m wary of the House of Representatives’ moves to revise the Charter is that the Representatives appear to be using underhanded tactics to get it pushed through. At the top of the list is their insistence that Congress should vote jointly; in other words, the vote of the Senators is included with the Representatives and assumes that Congress is one big body of legislators.

The problem with this scheme is that Congress, by nature, is bicameral, meaning that there are two separate legislative bodies. In short, the Senate should vote to push for Charter Change in a separate vote from the House. The House cannot claim that they are Congress alone; to push for Charter Change, the Senate must also agree. And, so far, Senators have crossed party lines to state their collective opposition to Charter Change.

One of the main sticking points for Charter Change to move forward is the suspicion that, once the constitutional assembly is formed, our politicians will move to extend their terms, or, in place of that, revise the Charter to ensure their prolonged stay in power. No amount of talk from pro-Charter Change representatives or Presidential mouthpieces will convince anti-Charter Change otherwise. The suspicion is well-placed, given the fact that the public trust in President Arroyo has been consistently low.

In fact, House Speaker Rep. Prospero Nograles confirmed that, should a Charter Change body be convened, changes such as term extension would be possible.

As long as the current leadership is in place, Charter Change is not possible, as the nation is too polarized on the issue.

The tragedy here is that, admittedly, the Constitution needs to be revised in order for us to progress as a nation, in order for us to be in step with the rest of the world. Due to the vested interests of our political elite and the moral bankruptcy of our leaders, however, it is unlikely that such changes will be implemented.

Side Comment: I find it funny that, in her column last Sunday, Charter Change fanatic Carmen Pedrosa slams those against Charter Change as being elitist, keeping the status quo, and protecting the interests of oligarchs. In her diatribe, she rails against the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Church. It’s funny because the institutions which she lauds for its attempt to push Charter Change through are everything she attributes to the anti-Charter Change crowd. In fact, the House of Representatives and the administration are even more elitist and more for keeping the status quo and more protective of oligarchic interests. Of course, in Pedrosa’s book, since they’re for Charter Change, they’re the ‘good guys’.

Unfortunately, our political landscape isn’t that black and white, and Pedrosa is either naïve or stupid to believe that the House or the administration will only focus on those parts of the Constitution that need to be changed, and not follow their heart’s desire. If Charter Change is to be achieved, it’s not going to be within this administration’s lifetime.

Side Comment: Philippine Star columnist Alex Magno, in his column today, gives a very concise and detailed explanation of the defects in the 1987 Constitution, and then slams anti-Charter Change critics for fear-mongering. It's been very clear, though, where Magno is coming from, being one of the various mouthpieces of the administration. Given what this administration has done to stifle political growth, critics have every right to be fearful of its motives in pushing for Charter Change. Still, his final words have merit:

"The best way, I suppose, is to arrive at a clear public consensus first on what changes need to be done and then, on the basis of that consensus, have the constituent assembly act on the basis of clearly prescribed goals."

If that can be achieved, and if the constituent assembly can be made to stay on course, then I might be willing to buy into Charter Change, although I would much rather prefer it after this administration is done.