That storyline speaks of "two Philippines" – a Philippines that is functional and a Philippines that is not. The Philippine economy, benefited by the reforms of the last decade, is functional and ready for take-off. Filipino politics, largely unreformed, brings about chronic bouts with turbulence that threatens our economic progress.
We are a country that is fragmented not only in its topography. We are also fragmented in our demography: by the gap in cultures between rich and poor, the variance in opinion across ethno-linguistic groups and an increasingly evident generation gap.
We cannot cure all the lines of fragmentation in one blow. But we can make adjustments in our institutional arrangement so that the fissures will not deepen further and incapacitate the workings of a national community.
And so it is that the President called for the debate to begin regarding the matter of constitutional reform.
There are several theories proposed in this move.
The first is that a shift to a parliamentary form of government will cure the propensity of our presidential/bicameral system to self-destruct. A parliamentary form will diminish the personality-oriented character of our politics and strengthen party-based politics.
The second is that a shift to federalism will ease the tensions between regions arising from inequitable distribution of the national pie and uneven development of our provinces. It will allow greater responsiveness in governance, enabling us to take advantage of economic opportunities as they arise.
The third is that a constituent assembly is as fit to do the job of constitutional renovation as a constitutional convention. The issues, after all, have been aired for years and some amount of thinking has been put into the possible alternatives that could be offered to the people for ratification.
All three theories are, of course, matters for public debate.
To be sure, the proposal to open debates for constitutional renovation will serve the tactical interests of a besieged presidency. It will crowd the plate of public discussion and displace political energies generated by recent controversies. And should continued stay in office become untenable, constitutional reform provides a graceful exit.
Opening the debate on charter change opens many avenues for the constituencies supportive of the President to come into play. Federalism is an appealing option for people in the Visayas and Mindanao who have long felt that "imperial Manila" has constricted their opportunities for progress. A shift to parliamentary government is strongly endorsed by congressmen and local executives. A broad-based Movement for a Federal Philippines has been recently organized.
But separate from whatever tactical value opening the debate might have for the President, we will have to grant that there is intrinsic validity to the demand for a fundamental reform of our political institutions. We have had enough harrowing experiences with the present institutional configuration to convince us reform is necessary.
Whatever tactical benefits there might be for the President are merely incidental to the necessary task of re-imagining our institutional configuration. When she sought election last year, the President did commit to charter change and a shift to federalism. That is the principal reason her candidacy was overwhelmingly supported in the Visayas.
The opposition, for their part, offer our people another storyline.
In this storyline, the nation’s central concern at the moment ought to be the impeachment of the incumbent. They offer a melodramatic story about "cheating, stealing and lying" to pull the rug of legitimacy from under the sitting President. They want public attention focused on the impeachment process they have initiated – a process that promises to be as complex and as murky as that facing charter change.
In order to help ensure that public passions remain focused on the controversies thrown up against the President, the leftist party-list groups have initiated a resolution at the House of Representatives calling for the charter change efforts to be shelved.
Each side will try very hard to foist their preferred storyline on the public and eradicate the other. The next few weeks will likely be very confusing for the public.
The Speaker of the House insists that both the impeachment process and the initiatives for charter change could proceed simultaneously on separate tracks. But the majority of senators have also indicated their disinclination to entertain proposals for constitutional reform.
From the way things stand, we are likely to run into a stalemate on both efforts.
Inasmuch as the Senate would not likely move on charter change proposals, much political energy will have to be invested in changing the minds of senators. In the meantime, the impeachment complaint against the President will run into a gauntlet of endless congressional debates at the House Committee on Justice. It is currently trapped in complicated wrangling at the Rules Committee.
The tendency of our institutions to work themselves into a gridlock prevents both efforts from proceeding at a more resolute pace.
The irony here is that it is precisely the tendency towards institutional gridlock that inspires the perception that we need constitutional change. It is that same gridlock that prevents change from happening.
The very same tendency towards institutional immobilism inspires the effort to impeach the President. It is also that tendency that will frustrate efforts to do so.
We are looking at a very sad spectacle indeed: a political system constantly at odds with itself and yet unable to accept reform.
Although the likelihood for anything substantial happening in good time seems nil at the moment, the various players will nevertheless expend time, effort and money to peddle their contending storylines.