Illegal shortcut

The matter of Charter change is dangerously getting out of hand. The debate is degenerating into character assassination, name calling and harassments by threats of tax evasion charges that inexorably lead into the blurring of the real issues on the merits of the proposed changes. Before long, even the step by step process of change is bound to be thrown out of the window. The impatience and the arrogance of the faceless and nameless personalities secretly funding the pro Cha-cha movement and passionately craving to tamper with the most important document that holds the nation together somehow heightens the suspicion that some hidden agenda lurks behind the move. There is actually no serious and overriding reason for resorting to shortcuts or setting a deadline or fixing a timetable to effect the proposed changes. We have to be sure that any change in the Charter is really what the enfranchised voters want after being apprised of their pros and cons. And this process takes time. It cannot be done by simply gathering signatures already containing the changes drawn up by a fly-by-night group that suddenly burst into the scene or by the traditional politicians who continue to use the people in initiating and advancing their own proposals under the guise of what they call "peoples' initiative".

There is definitely something wrong in attacking and antagonizing the opponents of Charter change. Pitting the small, the downtrodden and the marginalized against the business elite, the rich and the power brokers, as being for and against the Cha-cha respectively, is unhealthy for our country and detrimental to a vibrant democracy. It is the method of rabble rousers who have ran out of valid arguments. It divides the country even deeper. Our Constitution incorporated special articles for its amendments or revision precisely to avoid such divisiveness and the use of such approaches that would place the whole process as a valid exercise of the peoples’ sovereignty, under a heavy cloud of doubt.

More alarming and quite disturbing is the recent challenge of the Cha-cha proponents to the opponents to agree to a nationwide referendum so "Filipinos may decide, once and for all, whether to approve or reject the proposed shift to a parliamentary system of government". Changing the Charter is not done this way. Generally, constitutional change either by amendment or revision is a three step process: first is the proposal of amendments or revision either by Congress convening as a constituent assembly, or by a Constitutional Convention called by Congress, or by the people through initiative; second is the submission of the proposed amendments or revision for approval of the body concerned; and third is the ratification of the proposal by the people in a plebiscite. Calling for a referendum right away before the proposed amendments or revision are approved by the body empowered to propose such amendments or revision is reversing the process. Even if the Cha-cha is done through a people’s initiative, the initiative phase, where the required number of electorate makes the proposal, comes first, followed by the referendum phase where the people ratify the proposal.

Short cutting the process by submitting the proposal to a referendum without undergoing the first two steps once more shows the ugly head of politics on such an important political exercise. Obviously, the people who are hurling the challenge come from the local government units where patronage politics, political dynasties and warlordism still thrive and remain strong because our electoral system is still the same old system susceptible to fraud and manipulation. The local politicians are apparently so sure that they can "deliver the votes" in a referendum because they have done it in previous elections. In other words they dare to ask for a referendum because they are already certain that they can still employ their usual dirty but effective political tactics assuring them of the desired outcome beforehand.

At the end of the day, even if our Charter is really in dire need of amendments and revision, the more urgent and pressing question besetting us pertains not to what, when and how it should be changed but whether our electoral system is reliable enough to insure that these changes are truly the result of the direct act of the people exercising their sovereignty rather than the acts of politicians imposing their will on, and manipulating the people.

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected]