Now an Auspicious Time to Revive Chacha

Saturday, 05 March 2011 08:13

Written by Tony La Viña

Prompted by a pronouncement from P-Noy that he will not seek public office beyond June 2016, a congressman suggested that now is the ideal time to revive Charter Change because the president will not benefit from it. The suggestion however was shot down before it could even take-off when the Office of the President made a statement that pushing for charter change (Cha-cha) is “not a priority” of the Aquino administration and not among the 25 measures that it wants to propose to Congress this year.

It cannot be denied that the Philippines is mired in terms of its governance, which of course affects the nation’s economy. Even the court system and institutions like the Ombudsman, Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, among others, which are constitutionally mandated to promote a peaceful and just society are simply not up to the task. The on-going congressional investigation on AFP corruption and the flawed Garcia plea bargaining agreement accentuate once again the rut we are in. Abusive and insincere officials easily get into and take advantage of a flawed system with impunity thereby exacerbating mass poverty and social malaise. It is assumed that this quagmire is the result of a complex interaction of flawed officials and flawed structures and systems. These flaws feed off each other. While these corrupt officials ought to be punished swiftly and with certitude, the flawed structures and system they operate in ought to be changed or reformed. One such flawed structure is the 1987 Constitution.

Is now the right time to revisit the Charter Change debate? Since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, attempt after attempt were made to change the constitution but to no avail. We are all witness to the ill-fated People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) during the time of President Ramos; the Constitutional Correction for Development (Concord) of President Joseph Estrada and the notorious Cha-cha initiatives by the Aquino administration through a people’s initiative and some House Resolutions to conduct a referendum on Charter Change and to turn the De Venecia led House of Representatives into a Constituent Assembly.

The three post-EDSA administrations miserably failed to bring the ordinary citizens to their side in this Great Debate on Charter Change. Appeals from advocates that Charter Change will help eliminate governance deficit and perennial social ills of the country such as mass poverty and corruption fell on deaf ears. These attempts were invariably accompanied by knee-jerk opposition from organized groups, institutions, citizens’ organizations, and individuals across all geographic areas and socio-economic classes.

At the bottom of these failed attempts is the negative perception that the initiators of Charter-change are not credible. The personalities involved were scrutinized on their vested interests. Simply stated, Charter Change is a marketing campaign that needs credible endorsers for customers to buy. Credibility and integrity of the political leadership are qualities that future initiators should give premium to. This might as well be since there is a deeply embedded belief in the Filipino psyche that any attempt to overhaul the political system is merely a brazen subterfuge by the ruling elite to perpetuate their political and economic stranglehold. Surely, there is a grain to truth to this public paranoia. Historically, from the time of the Spaniards up to the recent past, our ruling elite seem to have conducted themselves in utter disregard of the common good.

But more than two decades after the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution, is there a need to re-ignite the Cha-cha which had been furiously debated on in the past?

I believe now is the opportune time. For one, the credibility of President Aquino may no longer be an issue. P-Noy’s high approval rating attests to this. He can capitalize on this enormous political capital to push for charter change. Rightly or wrongly, people see him as a trustworthy and well-meaning leader who, despite his limitations, can catalyze the needed change. Thus far, he has not done anything that will erode this public trust. Through moral suasion, he has the potential to forge a consensus among the diverse, and oftentimes discordant, sectors of the society which in the past has proved unwieldy for purposes of pushing for charter change. True there are immediate concerns that require immediate solutions, but this in no way precludes the search for enduring remedies.

We are all too aware that innumerable executive and congressional actions are failing to solve social ills which despite them are in fact worsening. And inevitably the government will run-out of solutions. Lack of foreign investments; thriving mass poverty in the midst of galloping population growth; corruption in all levels of government and the private sector which refuses go away; and the dissention in the South remaining a thorny governance issue despite several attempts at negotiation spanning several decades. Add to these is the worsening effects of climate change which can and will become a major environmental and social issue in the years to come. Have we not considered that the problem lies not in the lack of proposed solutions but that these solutions are in fact being implemented in a flawed system that in the first place conduces to a dysfunctional society? Perhaps there is a need to take a second hard look at the provisions of the 1987 Constitution that contribute to the malfunctioning of our institutions. The aim is a form of governance order that would enhance institutions of government. Within existing political and economic settings, there is a need to revisit old but still relevant issues like the debate on the form of government and their implications for governmental stability and effectiveness, the impact of institutional arrangements (like federalism, judicial review, and the electoral system) on economic or democratic performance, and the importance of constitutional agencies of accountability like the Ombudsman, Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit.

A country in constant struggle to achieve major change in the society in order to attain development and progress will always seek ways on how to do it. The continuous search by the Filipino people for enduring solutions to its problems illustrate this constant struggle. With P-Noy nearing only the first year in office, perhaps there is time to introduce a more lasting and decisive remedies to the major problems of the society rather than settling with palliative, temporary and cosmetic solutions. Change the system by changing the Charter and forever reverse the trend of underdevelopment. It is the enduring legacy that this government can give to our children.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites