"Basically, these are the same as Venable. These are very clearly intended for lobbying," San Juan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora told reporters in an interview.
Zamora said he had never seen so many "anomalous" contracts, even during his stint as executive secretary in the administration of Joseph Estrada, President Arroyo’s predecessor, as he called for a congressional investigation of the matter.
"We will give you an idea how they are and how (much in government funds) is being lost to all these contracts, which do not serve any purpose at all," Zamora said. He declined to give details.
House Minority Leader Francis Escudero and Iloilo City Rep. Rolex Suplico said that scrapping the $1-million contract with the Baltimore-based law firm does not get National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales off the hook.
Gonzales signed the contract, meant to sell the contentious issue of Charter change, in behalf of the government.
"Their liability will still remain," Escudero said. Suplico said the House would summon Gonzales to answer questions about the contract. "He has to face the question hour and face the whole Congress," he said.
Suplico added that most lawmakers, who are in favor of amending the Constitution, were not aware of the Venable deal.
"Speaker Jose de Venecia was not even aware of this. Not even Cagayan de Oro Rep. Constantino Jaraula, who is the chairman of the House committee on constitutional amendments. And not even Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita knows about this," he said.
Administration lawmaker Antonio Cuenco of Cebu City, chairman of the House committee on foreign affairs, said the "immediate rescission" of the contract was a "just and proper action" on Malacañang’s part.
He branded the Venable contract as "completely unnecessary and politically incorrect," warning it might "rekindle divisive and acrimonious rhetoric from the political opposition."
"How in the world can Charter change and the parliament shift be considered within the ambit of national security?" Cuenco asked. "Gonzales must have learned that there is nothing good to be gained in contracts shrouded in secrecy and mystery, especially those involving the priorities of the current administration aimed at improving our country’s governance."
Mrs. Arroyo is struggling to rebuild her credibility after an impeachment challenge from the House opposition was defeated by administration allies.
In July, she admitted phoning an election official during last year’s presidential vote count but denied opposition allegations that she cheated her way to victory.
In her State of the Nation Address in July, Mrs. Arroyo called on Congress to consider rewriting the Constitution and changing the country’s form of government from the current presidential system to a federal, parliamentary setup.
She argued that such a move would fuse the legislative and executive branches of government and help stop gridlock caused by quarrels between the president and the legislature, as well as make the government more efficient and responsive to the public.
Charter change opponents say economic reforms and endemic corruption should be addressed first, adding that a parliamentary system needs strong parties to work properly.
They say a strong party system is something the Philippines’ personality-driven politics notably lacks.
Critics charge that most political parties in the Philippines are merely vehicles for prominent personalities. Elected officials switch parties with ease, making parliamentary governments vulnerable to being toppled anytime, they say.
De Venecia, however, points to the many parliamentary governments in Europe and Asia as examples of how such a system works better than the presidential system, which the Philippines inherited from its American colonizers in the 1900s.
Under the current system, the executive branch of government must engage in lengthy debates and lobbying with two chambers of Congress — the Senate and the House of Representatives — before a bill can be passed and sent to the president for signing.
A federal system has also gained favor among provincial governments who have long been dissatisfied over the dominance of "Imperial Manila."
However, the Senate may again block the renewed attempt to amend the Constitution — just as it did last year — because most senators disagree with Charter change proponents over when and how to make the amendments.
Past attempts to amend the Charter during the administrations of Fidel Ramos and Estrada were blocked by strong public opposition.
Most Filipinos fear that Charter change proponents might remove limits on elective officials’ terms put in place to prevent a repeat of alleged abuses under the Marcos dictatorship.