Arroyo neutral on Charter changes

President Arroyo will take the middle road on the issue of Charter change.

The process of convening Congress into a constituent assembly for the purpose of amending the 1987 Constitution will be left in the hands of the legislature by the President and she will merely abide by the outcome of the lawmakers’ efforts.

"We leave the process to Congress," Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye said. "Let them sort it out among themselves. The stand of the President remains neutral."

The push to amend the 1987 Constitution by members of the legislature, he said, "does not occupy high priority on the President’s list."

Bunye also downplayed interpretations and perceptions that the Chief Executive has flip-flopped on the Charter change issue, since she was categorically against amending the 1987 Constitution when the issue was first discussed. "The President remains very neutral," he said.

"If they (Congress leaders) agree (to Charter change), then the President will not oppose (them)," Bunye said as he refused to comment on threats to oust Senate President Franklin Drilon from the Senate helm should the chamber refuse to work a compromise with the House of Representatives.

"It is an internal matter insofar as the Senate is concerned," he said. "We would like to refrain from making any comment."

Members of the House voted overwhelmingly to adopt Concurrent Resolution 16, which calls for the creation of a constituent assembly that will propose changes in the constitution. House Concurrent Resolution 16 is now pending in the Senate.

Most of the legislators want the Charter amendment done by converting the Senate and House into a constituent assembly, rather than the more costly method of electing delegates to a constitutional convention that will amend the basic law and later holding a plebiscite to ratify amendments to the Charter.

Opposition Sen. Edgardo Angara, who heads the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and electoral reforms, said most of them favor a constituent assembly, especially now that most of them have agreed that the May 2004 national elections will push through, the terms of those elected into office will not be extended and a parliamentary form of government will be reintroduced.

Under the 1972 Constitution the Philippines was to have a parliamentary form of government, which was later adopted through the Batasang Pambansa some years into the dictatorship of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. The 1987 Constitution was created by a constitutional commission and ratified by plebiscite during the revolutionary government of then President Corazon Aquino and the presidential system of government was re-adopted.

"Amendments would be a lot faster under (a constituent assembly) because there is no need to overhaul the Constitution. Only the provision on the form of government and the restrictive economic provisions need to be changed so that the country could fully pursue its goals of growth and development," Angara said.

Under a parliamentary system, he said, legislative measures would be accomplished faster because "there would be no need to file and deliberate on two separate bills for a single measure and there would be no need for a bicameral conference to reconcile the differences between the two bills."