One is the frenzied battle into which the proponents and oppositors of charter change are being thrown into. Unfortunately, the battle is being finstigated by some members of the media – upon the urging of some of the protagonists. From the news reports one reads or hears about from radio broadcasts, it appears that the person who really wants charter change, through the constituent assembly process, is Speaker Joe de Venecia who is said to be eyeing the job of Prime Minister under a parliamentary system of government.
Whether Mr. De Venecia wants the job or not – who among the elected officials do not want the job, anyway? – that should not be the issue at this time. The question of who the Prime Minister will be shall be dealt with in the election among the parliamentarians – not before the parliamentary system has been approved.
Of course it is accepted that Mr. De Venecia has been in the forefront of the movement to amend the Constitution; very few of our congressional leaders have shown the perspicacity as much as he has in presenting the wisdom of a parliamentary system as an alternative to the presidential form of government.
As what happened in the months before the electoral campaign, the Speaker and charter change advocates had gone around the country, talking about the need to change the system, and that the better way to change that is by convening a constituent assembly, not a constitutional convention.
What has added to the confusion is the report that President Macapagal-Arroyo has signified her preference not to have charter change during the six years she is in office. It is true that deliberations on the change should be thorough and serious. But that does not mean we have to wait for six years to have change.
What should be done now is to vigorously go on a campaign blitz to facilitate a charter change – whether it be through a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention. In subsequent issues, this column shall be talking about the pros and cons of either mode.
Now, even if Joey had tendered his resignation last December, the acceptance of his resignation only the other day fuels the perception that he has been axed, that he is the first man out of the Cabinet. That is really unfortunate.
Joey was governor of Laguna when he was appointed DILG Secretary. As secretary, he put in a lot of effort in making reforms in the peace and order arena, one of them in vanquishing jueteng, an illegal form of gambling that has launched the careers of many politicians. Jueteng, as all vices are, is an insidious disease for which there is no cure but spiritual enlightenment and self-will. As such, eliminating it is an impossible job.
Although my feminist friends and I did not see eye to eye with Joey on the issue of contraceptive method use when he was provincial governor, I feel sorry that his leaving his post is tainted with the wrong perception that he did not perform well.
The appointment of General Reyes to the DILG is met with appreciation by some, and regrets by others. The first group credits him for his having played a key role in the installation of President Macapagal-Arroyo at EDSA 2. But the second group is of the belief that as Defense Secretary, he favored the bombing of rebel camps in Mindanao, and that he was not receptive to the first draft of a peace accord between the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
General Reyes assumes a heavier dual role. He retains his being head of the anti-kidnapping and anti-carnapping task force as well as running after the jueteng and drug lords once and for all. But can he do all of that? You and I will know the answer in due time.