Ready to Cha-cha

Now that President Arroyo and the House of Representatives are in agreement about amending the Constitution, it looks like all is set for Charter change or Cha-cha in the next regular session of Congress.

The Senate wrangle over the expanded value-added tax bill must have finally persuaded Malacañang to give priority to Cha-cha, whose main proponent, as everyone knows, is Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.

Because the Speaker is the prime mover, the long-held perception is that he merely wants to become prime minister. Since the President herself is now endorsing Cha-cha, however, she must have been reassured that her powers will remain intact in case the government shifts to a parliamentary system, even if she will serve merely in a transitional capacity.

The President is also amenable to Cha-cha through Congress convening itself into a constituent assembly. This is the preferred mode of congressmen rather than the more expensive constitutional convention where delegates need to be elected.

The so-called Freedom Constitution, now 18 years old, can use some changes. Since its ratification in 1987 we have seen its many gray areas that need clarification and the flaws that need to be corrected.

There are economic provisions that must be made more responsive to the challenges of globalization and free trade. There is a provision that must be rid of ambiguity before it is used again by military officers as a justification for withdrawing their support from duly constituted authority. We have to decide whether we want to keep the provision that bans political dynasties, because its inclusion in the Charter has become a joke. The process of recalling elected public officials — a provision that pays tribute to people power but has been abused especially in local politics — must be reviewed. Certain powers of the judiciary need to be defined.

The biggest question as Filipinos prepare for Cha-cha is whether it is the answer to the many ills plaguing the nation. I know De Venecia’s response: Cha-cha is certainly no cure-all, but it could make life easier.

Another question is how senators will react to a proposal that makes no secret of its objective of effectively abolishing the Senate. A possible response of Sen. Panfilo Lacson is to simply run for mayor of Manila in 2007. A few other senators look like they are eyeing Cabinet posts. As for the rest, it’s a good guess that they would try to block Cha-cha. Can Malacañang and the House deal with opposition from the Senate?

* * *

The proposal to change the form of government has undergone several makeovers in recent years, most of which would have watered down the powers of the presidency.

That wouldn’t be so bad, as far as certain sectors are concerned. These sectors think putting this messed-up country under the steerage of a prime minister, who is chosen by his peers rather than elected directly, will end the propensity of a poorly informed electorate to choose a president based on popularity rather than competence. To be blunt, it will stop the masses from sending another Joseph Estrada to Malacañang.

The premise is that lawmakers can tell the competent from the imbeciles in their midst and will not allow themselves to be ruled by someone who is not qualified for the job of prime minister.

The most notable version of the Cha-cha proposal was a power-sharing scheme that would have called for three prime ministers over six years, each serving two years. The first would have been President Arroyo. The remaining four years would have been split between De Venecia and businessman Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.

That was when the buzz was still strong that Cojuangco was eyeing the presidency. Now that he has dropped out of the political limelight and the President is approaching the second year of a six-year term, proponents of a parliamentary system will have to forget that scheme as well as any dreams of having a strong prime minister and a ceremonial president. This President is holding on to her powers, and we will have to look at the French system for any shift to a parliamentary form of government.

* * *

Another major argument of Cha-cha proponents is that it would end the perennial gridlock between the executive and legislative branches.

This is an argument that will find support. The antics of lawmakers, particularly several clowns at the Senate, have made taxpayers wonder why billions of pesos in public funds are being wasted on Congress. The proposal will not abolish the legislature, but if a unicameral body can speed up lawmaking, the public will go along with it.

The public, however, should not expect the shift to a parliamentary system to lead to sweeping changes in Philippine politics. This is what the nation needs, but it is too much to expect of Cha-cha.

Until we see significant progress in public education and poverty alleviation, our political system will remain feudal, with the nation ruled by a deeply entrenched oligarchy. Politicians will continue to dispense patronage and make decisions based on personal rather than national interest. As long as the price is right, they will also want to poke their noses into every aspect of governance, including the appointment of police and military officers and even the closure of substandard colleges and universities.

In Philippine politics, the more things change, the more they remain the same (with apologies to Alphonse Karr). Cha-cha isn’t going to cure this ill.

In other matters, amending the Constitution can make a difference. At the very least, Cha-cha can give the impression that an administration is committed to reforms. That’s enough reason for Malacañang to endorse Charter change.