The unholy haste by which some proponents of Cha-cha seek to implement Charter change does not reflect the serious study that should precede any attempt to change our form of government.
Concededly, there are some provisions of our basic law that could stand amendment, such as those that impose strict nationality requirements in certain industries, which have served merely as a hindrance to the inflow of foreign investment. If the motive of those who advocate Charter change is simply to change these provisions on nationality, then this could be done by the simple expedient of having Congress convene as a constituent assembly. However, the principal motive that impels many of those who propose Charter change is not to create a more favorable climate for foreign investors. Rather it is to change our form of government from a bicameral Congress to a unicameral legislative body, and from a presidential form of government to a parliamentary one.
In support of Charter changer, its proponents have recycled the same reasons raised in the past, but which have been cast aside again and again by an indifferent and unconvinced public.
One reason cited for Cha-cha is that the Senate has become an obstructionist body, delaying the passage of important bills passed by the House. What proponents of Cha-cha call obstructionism, however, was referred to by the framers of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions as a system of checks and balances, whereby one house serves as a restraint and check upon the other house. Each House is not without its share of defects. That is why it is important that one should have the power to check the other.
Our past experience. Supporters of Charter change argue that having a one-house legislature would speed up the legislation needed to revive our ailing economy. The framers of the 1935 Constitution did not seem to be of the same mind. For they replaced the unicameral National Assembly that legislated prior to the commonwealth with a bicameral body. If our experience with a unicameral body had been a happy one, surely the framers of the 1935 Constitution would have retained it.
More recent examples illustrate more vividly the need for a second chamber to serve as a restraint upon the other. The Interim Batasang Pambansa during martial law and the Batasang Pambansa that succeeded it serve as most eloquent arguments in favor of a bicameral legislature. The sudden demise of the Batasang Pambansa in 1986 was unlamented.
Some have cited alleged misdemeanors and slips of the tongue of certain Senators as basis for amending the charter to provide for a unicameral legislative body. In effect, they argue in favor of Charter change because of certain senators. Resort to personalities never resolve issues. If the implication is that the members of the Senate are less qualified or less honorable than the members of the House, this simply is not true. Although the Senate has lost much of the luster that is enjoyed prior to martial law, and during the presidency of Corazon Aquino, the general perception appears to be that Senators are held in higher esteem than members of the House. Many Congressmen would give their right arm to be in the Senate, but know that this will never come to pass.
Root of our problem. Moreover, one cannot legislate economic progress into existence. The attainment of economic development is a slow, painstaking task that requires hard work, good faith and a sense of honesty on the part of public servants. The not too distant past when the Philippines was still the Pearl of the Orient all took place under a presidential form of government with a bicameral Congress. There is basically nothing wrong with our present system. The root of the problem lies in some of the men who run the system. Would a change of men, therefore, solve the problem? To quote Senator Dick Gordon and, much earlier, the late Senator Raul Manglapus, what we need is not merely a change of men, but a change in men.
Cha-cha deflects the attention of our leaders and people away from solving the many pressing problems of today. If there are any indications that this indeed is what our people want, perhaps all this would be worth it. For after all, ours is a democracy. However, numerous past surveys of Pulse Asia and the Social Weather Station consistently indicated that the great majority of our citizens had been against Charter change, or simply did not know the reason why they were in favor. When confronted in the past with the result of these polls, one congressman replied that other congressmen who dance the Cha-cha have conducted their own grassroots survey, indicating overwhelming support for Cha-cha. He added that the survey revealed 85 percent of the people were in favor of Charter change. If this supposed survey revealed anything, it is that the ability to count correctly is not among the strengths of the congressmen who conducted the survey.
Legislators in favor of Cha-cha disavow any notion that their support for Charter change is grounded on self-interest. However, it seems that one of those who stands to benefit the most from Charter change is the point man of the movement. For a parliamentary form of government is, to my mind, the only way that Speaker Jose de Venecia can become either head of government or head of state.
It’s time for us to stop the music, roll up our sleeves, and get about the task of helping our country heal itself. Dancing the Cha-cha now will get us nothing and nowhere.
(The author is a Senior Partner of Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices or ACCRALAW. He may be contacted at Tel. 830-8000 or e-mailed at rfdelcastillo@accralaw.com)