June Deoferio, Cavite: Yes, our lawmakers know best as to how Charter change will benefit our country and contribute to economic stability.
Jose Fabello Jr., Cagayan de Oro City: I see them as only being after their own good at this point in time. No good.
Charter change is a must at this time
Erwin Espinosa, Pangasinan: But of course. The 1987 Constitution is now obsolete. Let’s face it squarely. Anti-progress ang mga economic provisions nito.
Luisito Vallo, Pangasinan: I think so. I, for one, believe that it will be for the good of our country should our Charter be amended. It’s outdated and needs to be overhauled to present times.
Durbin Rantael, Quezon City: Yes, indeed. The government’s policies must adjust to the times and adapt to the country’s political environment.
Dino Monzon, Caloocan City: Yes, because the current Constitution is outdated and needs to be amended to reflect the times. Even America amends its Constitution as needed.
F. Guevara, Metro Manila: Charter change is already a given. Every Filipino agrees that there should be changes in the Constitution. The question is what method of change we should adopt whether by initiative, convention or assembly. Another question is when whether before, during, or after the 2010 elections. Charter change is for the country’s good. People who are against it are those with selfish motives and self-interests to protect.
Dexter Domingo, Benguet: It’s time for us to realize that our Charter no longer meets all our needs in this generation. We need one that jibes with the times.
Jose Parco, Aklan: Admittedly, our Constitution is in need of amendment. However, why does the House of Congress always do it every time the incumbent President’s term is about to end? As a result, the people are always hesitant to support such a move. On the other hand, if we don’t do it now, when? Whoever the proponent is should lay down on the table whatever cards they are holding so people will know what’s in it for them.
Rico Fabello, Parañaque City: Yes, what other reasons would be there to think about? Cha-cha is inevitable.
Manny Cordeta, Marikina City: Recent developments, media feedback, etc. tend to show that the proposal is gaining headway or momentum, and for this, I believe so. I could sense that the proponents have one common thing in the back of their minds: Cha-cha is long overdue. But as expected, skeptics will always be around to suspect that behind this proposal lies a hidden agenda, i.e. term extension. Let me just remind these people that the proposal to change the Charter is not a monopoly of administration allies but also by the opposition and is most probably premised on the nobility and objectivity of the initiative.
Pedro Alagano Sr., Vigan City: Yes, Cha-cha proponents are statesmen who are thinking of the next generation. Sadly, their efforts are being blocked by politicians who’re thinking only of the next elections.
C.B. Fundales, Bulacan: Yes, those with vested interests to protect oppose Cha-cha. After all, Filipinos wouldn’t be dumb to ratify one which won’t do the country good.
Teeming with vested interest
Digoy Coro, Batangas: They’re pushing Cha-cha for the country’s good, but there will probably be changes for their own agenda and interests.
Ella Arenas, Pangasinan: Maybe yes, maybe not, but more on the not because it’s probably just a ploy to insert the extension of PGMA’s term.
Lydia Reyes, Bataan: I don’t. Any change in our Charter benefits our leaders only. When the Constitution was amended in 1973, we already had a parliamentary form of government.
Valerie Joyce Go, Tacloban City: Twenty-five per cent of it is for our country, but 75 percent of it is for themselves, so it’s still no.
C.B. Manalastas, Manila: Most proponents are using Cha-cha mainly to remain in power and secondly to revise some outmoded provisions in the Constitution.
Manuel Abejero, Pangasinan :Can we expect anything good from these crooks? The only thing they can think of is their own political survival and selfish interests. No more, no less.
Elpidio Que, Vigan: Cha-cha proponents are like a pack of wolves that murdered the truth (PGMA’s impeachment) in Congress, so how can Cha-cha be for our good? These dogs of war are indeed thick-faced and heartless.
Joe Nacilla, Las Piñas City: It is very clear that the proponents have a hidden agenda. Otherwise, they would have immediately agreed to a Constitutional Convention. We can never have Cha-cha that will benefit the country because politics is too destructive. The destruction is manufactured by hiding the awful truth that trapped us in a political system where the organizing principle is the distribution of spoils and the protection of wealth.
Sahlee Reyes, Las Piñas City: Despite repeated denials from Malacañang about PGMA’s term extension through Charter change, I believe that from the moral standpoint, it is deceptive manipulation at its best. While senators are trying to assuage public apprehension in this regard, I have reservations that while our attention has been momentarily diverted to the issues of the day, Rep. Villafuerte, a staunch PGMA supporter, has been secretly on the run soliciting much-needed signatures for a resolution that proposes amendments to the entire Constitution. PGMA allies are obviously pushing strongly for Con Ass as this would be a numbers game (if the price is right).
Jojo Villanueva, Quezon City: No, Cha-cha proponents only want to serve their own interests and protect their proceeds from corruption.
Their motives are suspect
Nestor Buñag, Mandaluyong City: Voz, people have been given the runaround, moreso the masses, what with their naiveté. No, enough is enough.
L.C. Fiel, Quezon City: Since Cha-cha is a political exercise, people generally doubt the proponents’ motives. That’s how low the politician’s reputation has gone in this country.
Ricardo Tolentino, Laoag City: The Cha-cha proponents’ motives are always suspect. Credibility is always affected by the bad reputation of this administration.
Joseph Aliviado, Cagayan de Oro City: I’m not sure yet if it is really for the good of the nation, unless they are willing to sacrifice their own political ambitions so that others who are more capable will be given a chance to govern us.
Glen Reyes, Quezon City: No, all past Presidents from Ramos, Erap and now GMA were opposed to Cha-cha. Once elected, however, they wanted it passed.
William Gonzaga, Marikina City: There’s a saying that goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Indeed, there are provisions in the Charter that need change to spur economic development, though the fact that this can be done via sinister design provokes firm opposition from the public and erases any pretension of nobility of purpose.
Edwin Monares, Rizal: I still believe that those pushing for Charter Change have the good of the country at the back of their minds. I myself am an advocate of Charter Change because I see it as an important factor in pushing the country forward. Still, their intentions are suspect. An iota of goodness may be coming from the proposal but it is too obvious that this is a Trojan horse so the present occupant in Malacañang could still hope for term extension and continue to reign after 2010. I think the country’s good calls for an election in 2010 and the kicking out of traditional politicians and political mercenaries in all elective offices.
Let’s give it a chance
Dave Velasco, Marinduque: Don’t judge a book by its cover. Let’s give Cha-cha proponents a chance to prove its worth for country’s good.
Ryan Pahimulin, Rizal: Regardless of the integrity of its proponents, a shift to parliamentary system could be the best thing for us.
Felix Ramento, Manila: Yes, I have high hopes that Cha-cha is for the country’s good. Why close our opportunity as a nation? It’s precisely because of the elitist Cory Constitution that we have lagged behind.
Rodolfo Talledo, Angeles City: Having elected these leaders, we must trust that they do things for our welfare. Constantly being cynical is being too presumptuous.
Rey Onate, Palayan City: Because I have not heard any discussions and rebuttals on the contending issues on Cha-cha, I’m giving the proponents the benefit of the doubt. They are highly educated and are intellectually capable of doing good for our country.
No to term extension
Armando Tavera, Las Piñas City: I think so but one provision that should not be included is the term extension of the President. By all means, I go for Cha-cha.
Edwin Castillo, Batangas City: I’d believe them if they say that they are not for term extension.
No politician is after our country’s good
Chris Navarro, Las Piñas City: Not a single politician is after our country’s good. Our absurd election laws encourage politicians to be corrupt. Politicians pushing for Cha-cha simply want their money back. Those who are against it simply got their interests and earnings already and are acting like heroes.
Robert Young Jr., San Juan: Politicians have long become unabashed in their actions; they’ve stopped being representatives of their constituents. Instead, they act like vassals and warlords of their districts. Their proposed Cha-cha is not for the country’s welfare but for personal selfish motives. How else can they explain reviving an issue that has been dead again and again? The people are opposed to Cha-cha and have voiced these through the media, rallies and surveys, yet with less than six months to go before filing of candidacies, the Palace’s henchmen are at it again for the nth time. Days before a recess, the House Speaker is also calling for a two-week extension to discuss “unfinished legislation”. One thing stands on the side of our legislators, though: They have long stopped saying that Cha-cha is for the good of the country.
Holding on to power
Ruel Bautista, Laguna: No, our present system would work if piloted by the right persons. They are just interested in holding on to power more than anything else.
Jim Veneracion, Naga City: No, because they cannot deny on their mothers’ graves that their overall motive for Cha-cha is term extension through change in the form of government.
Fortunato Aguirre, Bulacan: Those proponents, including GMA, know that their political career will be kaput after the 2010 elections and Cha-cha is their only hope to stay in power.
Danilo Dagucon, Caloocan City: No, as long as GMA is in Malacañang, Cha-cha proponents would do anything to stay in power hanggang maihi na sila sa salawal nila.
Noel Banias, Metro Manila: From the start, the congressmen had had their minds set on Charter change, just like the lady perched in the Palace. Why? For as long as they can perpetuate themselves in power, the show goes on. The country’s good is farthest from their minds, plain and simple.
Leonard Villa, Batac City: Maybe for a few, yes. But most of them just want to perpetuate GMA in power by changing into a parliamentary form of government.
Concepcion P. Gaspar, Laoag City: Charter change for economic reforms is just a front or a facade for deceit. It’s masquerading as a means for the country’s good but I think there is a hidden agenda conceived by the wily foxes in Congress. Foremost in their mind is how to perpetuate themselves in power in an easier and less expensive manner. How could we trust these solons when all they think about is self-aggrandizement at the expense of the people?
Benjamin Nillo, Las Piñas City: Any way I look at it, there’s no such thing as “for the good of country”, because Cha-cha proponents are term extension-conscious politicians.
Ricardo Tolentino, Laoag City: Term extension is the ultimate goal of the Cha-cha move and its proponents are only pushing it for career preservation.
Renato Taylan, Ilocos Norte: No, the proponents have long shown their self-centeredness. Behind their propaganda of good will is their veiled motive to extend their terms.
Eufrocino Linsangan, Isabela: The Cha-cha proponents are not after the country’s good. They don’t want to be removed from power, that’s why. They’re desperately pushing for Cha-cha because of their personal, political and economic vested interest. Sinong lolokohin nila?
Jess Carpena, Metro Manila: Our country has many laws but are we implementing them? Obviously not. These are merely GMA allies out to extend her term.
Rose Leobrera, Manila: No, they are all after their own personal benefits, and that is to remain in power forever.
Diony Yap, Bacolod City: No, tell that to the Marines. Yan ang salvavida ng mga corrupt at palubog na mga pulitiko.
Cris Rivera, Rizal: No, Cha-cha would mean a security of tenure for the incumbent. Ratified today, Cha-cha spells nothing but trouble for the nation’s welfare.
What politicians want us to believe
Rey Ibalan, Antipolo City: Politicians are like magicians in our midst. They make us believe that Cha-cha is for the country’s good, but its really for them.
Jun Totañes, Parañaque City: It’s easier to believe that they are after their own good, not the country’s.
Ed Alawi, Davao City: No, they are only after their own term extension and all their perks while Cha-cha is in process indefinitely. It’s not a bit for the good of the country.
Why not do it at after 2010?
J. Gregorio, Manila: To remove all doubt, let’s do it after 2010 and elect the people to craft the revised Charter.
Germi Sison, Cabanatuan City: There are flaws in our present Constitution that need to be amended but such amendment should be after the 2010 election with the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to be elected during the Presidential elections. Those who want Cha-cha before 2010 with the present members of both Houses as members of the Constitutional Assembly have dubious reasons that are only good for themselves because that will prolong their hold on their offices. It is only months before the Presidential election. Why hurry?
Ishmael Calata, Parañaque City: I really cannot say whether our honorable legislators who are now proponents of Cha-cha are after the country’s good, but at this point in time when we are at the threshold of a grim global crisis, the direction they must take should be nothing except for the country’s good! If there is any doubt about their motives, I ask that the move be postponed until after the 2010 elections. For those who oppose it, please accept the fact that there are many defects in the 1987 Constitution that need to be amended.
We need political cleansing
Johann Lucas, Quezon City: I don’t think so. If the Charter is amended, who will lead the country? Those same old crooks again? We can get rid of them with political cleansing, not Cha-cha.
Gerii Calupitan, Muntinlupa City: All Cha-cha proponents love their country. If they can consider Haiti their country, they might end up there when Pinoys stage Edsa 7 to oust them.
Cha-cha will give us a better system
Mark Capistrano, Parañaque City: Yes, it is supported by the working elite for economic issues versus lazy elite who depend on government subsidies and encourages protectionism.
Norberto Robles, Taguig: Yes, chaning to a unicameral Parliament whose members are elected regionally will result in better leaders, better governance and less gridlock than what we have with the present presidential system.
Leandro Tolentino, Batangas City: Yes, I believe so. No further comments.
Ric Vergara, Calamba: Yes, provided that the new Charter will restore the two-party system and pardon is not granted to a convicted president.
M. Sunico, Caloocan City: Our Charter needs to be amended based on past developments, whether the proponents are after the country’s good or not. I believe our amended Charter should form a federal government in order to strengthen the administrative scope of each major island on its own terms. Separate regional legislative departments will cover each region, with national legislative representation on a more equitable footing. Moreover, the population density will naturally ease up in Manila after its decentralization. Visayans and Mindanaoans can go back to their own regions where availability of work will improve since their regional and local governments can administer and manage their own developments in a more balanced manner in accordance with their priorities. Economic competition among these three regions may arise, which could prompt a more progressive and united front against globalization.
More careful study must be done
Alexander Raquepo, Ilocos Sur: I believe they are after the country’s good. However, a more thorough and careful study must be done on what’s the best process. Will it be Constitutional Assembly or Constitutional Convention?
Implement laws properly first
Ignacio Anacta, Metro Manila: These Cha-cha proponents are only after prolonging their political power and finding more ways to enrich themselves and their families. As proven by history, power is more addictive than illegal drugs. If we reflect honestly, one can easily realize that only those who are in politics are getting richer. It’s not changing the type of government that is good for our country; it’s the effective, not selective, implementation of our laws that will propel our country to greater heights.
Views expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The STAR. The STAR does not knowingly publish false information and may not be held liable for the views of readers exercising their right to free expression. The publication also reserves the right to edit contributions to this section as it sees fit.
NEXT INBOX QUESTION: When faced with the issue of a spouse’s infidelity, is it better for one to save the marriage or to give up on it?
If registered, text philstar<space>fb<space>your message and send to 2256 (all networks)
To register, text philstar<space>reg<space>name,gender,birthdate,address and send to 2256 (all networks)
You may also email your views to: inbox@philstar.com.ph.