Barangay-storming for Charter change

While lawmakers are set to debate a new resolution on Charter change in the House of Representatives, members of the advocacy commission are literally barangay-storming in an effort to reach as many Filipinos as possible prelude to a people’s initiative. With lawmakers going on a five week Lenten break on April 8, they will have to work double time.

"We are already running out of time. We should start plenary debates on the resolution before the break, Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Constantino Jaraula, chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments said. Advocates in Congress are working to get at least 177 members to sign. This is the number representing three fourths of the House in order to file the resolution.

However, Majority Leader Prospero Nograles says they’ll go for 195 signatures. The De Venecia bloc already has 145 signatures, 50 short of the target of 195, which is three-fourths of the combined membership of the House (236) and the Senate (24). The aim of the group is to get as many signatures as possible not just for a constituent assembly but for the actual committee report that includes the constitutional amendments envisioned. The Kampi bloc, on the other hand asks that Congress (meaning the Senate and the House) be convened to propose amendments.

According to sources the Kampi measure is similar to a concurrent resolution the House had already approved several months ago seeking the convening of the two chambers into a constituent assembly (con-ass) to amend the Charter. The concurrent resolution has been pending in the Senate.

So the race is on for the authorship of Charter change. Will it be the people’s initiative or will it be a constituent assembly? Whichever mode (both are constitutionally mandated) will be ahead, developing events augur well for Charter change. It isn’t one or the other. The two have evolved from a choice of one or the other to become complementary movements.

That developed because of the intransigence of some members of the Senate particularly Senate President Franklin Drilon, who deemed it beneath them to debate the issue of Charter change. That attitude, more than anything else contributed to the jelling of the primordial importance of a people’s initiative for Charter change. It will bring the issue to the people not just for ratification but for their consideration as their initiative. That would reinforce the people’s sovereignty. Had the Senate agreed to a constituent assembly, a people’s initiative might not have been needed and we would have missed the chance for a great opportunity for a laudable political lesson in people’s sovereignty. There was some hesitation whether a people’s initiative should even be considered since that mode can only propose an amendment. With the 1987 Constitution needing revision, the worry was such a limitation would tie our hands to the much needed reforms. That difficulty has been resolved with the people’s initiative proposing an amendment. That done, an interim Parliament would take up the necessary revision which will in turn be ratified by people.

As an esteemed friend said to me early on we cannot predict just how the political crisis (which really comes down to those who want Charter change and those who don’t) will develop. It will have its own momentum and what I daresay a life-force far beyond our capacity to comprehend or decide upon. What we have are the little pockets giving the best of ourselves despite our minuscule understanding. To that we must be faithful.

Wherever we go, whether in Zambales, Bataan, Batangas, Pangasinan and Baguio among others, the audiences of local authorities, NGOs and ordinary people have responded enthusiastically. A suggestion from the PDSP that the Charter change advocacy commission should reach out to the poor is well taken. The trouble is there is nothing to re-evaluate. We are already reaching out to as many people of varying walks of life as possible. The PDSP can complement the information campaign by using its own network of grassroots contacts. Most of those we have talked to are themselves willing to pass on the information they have received in the meetings. In Bataan, for example there were about 2,000 barangay and NGO leaders as well as local media present.

The response is like a brushfire, lamentably not prominently reported in media (understandable since most are oligarch-owned). It is just as well since Charter change has become an issue of people’s sovereignty will draw the lines between those favored by the present system and those who have long been excluded from decision making processes of our institutions.

* * *

As Iranian ambassador Jalal Kalantari told a group of newspaper reporters recently at a press conference, he thinks that ultimately the controversy on Iran’s nuclear program is a business problem of competition. The Iranians think that they are being prohibited from advancing their uranium enrichment program because the G7 nations do not want them to be capable of using the technology for their own use as well as for export to other countries.

"The trouble is that if Iran is denied nuclear development that technology will remain in the hands of the G7 countries who do not want competition." With the inevitable dwindling of oil resources, there is already a scramble for nuclear development. Well, that is a view.

But how does one interpret the developing differences between Britain and France, two leading advocates for a tough UN Security Council statement on Iran’s nuclear program on one hand and their differences with Russia and China about the best way to address fears that Tehran may be seeking a nuclear bomb.

Uranium enrichment can be used either in the generation of electricity or to make nuclear weapons. According to the good ambassador, the Iranians were quite willing to have IAEA inspectors to watch the development and production of nuclear capability of Tehran. "There is a big gap between the two. It will take several steps before nuclear energy can be transformed into capability for nuclear arms," HE Kalantari added.

* * *

Some of my Muslim friends who read my account of the Saudi reaction to the Danish cartoons said this was not forceful enough. It remains true for many of them that they were disappointed with the lukewarm reaction of the Saudis against the cartoons that mocked the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Since the Saudis are the royal custodians of the Holy Mosques they could have done more given the indignation and anger felt by millions of Muslims all over the world, they added.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected].