Final push

Don’t count out Charter change just yet. The debate over the people’s initiative to change the Constitution is going back to the Supreme Court.

At the same time, there will be a final push for a constituent assembly, whose work will surely also be challenged before the high tribunal.

Administration officials announced yesterday that a second motion for reconsideration of the people’s initiative for Charter change or Cha-cha would be filed with the Supreme Court.

The petitioners are apparently anticipating the retirement early next month of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, who voted against using the initiative to shift to a parliamentary system.

They are also banking on the possibility of another change of mind by the tribunal, after it reversed its 1997 ruling and said the law on the people’s initiative, Republic Act 6735, is sufficient for amending the Constitution.

The reversal comes too late for Fidel Ramos, who could have sought re-election if the tribunal had allowed a people’s initiative to lift the single-term limit on the presidency in 1997.

Among the dissenters in the 1997 ruling was then Associate Justice Panganiban, so the recent reversal of the ruling on an enabling law for the people’s initiative was not unexpected.

The reversal of the 1997 ruling, while useless at this point for Ramos, is still useful for those advocating economic reforms to boost the nation’s global competitiveness and attract more job-generating foreign investments.

The reversal can also pave the way for the amendment of one constitutional provision that has been used as an excuse for military intervention in a political crisis.

Apart from economic reforms, the party-list system needs to be reviewed. There are better ways of promoting the welfare of marginalized sectors.

Such constitutional amendments are urgently needed by the nation if we want to catch up with our neighbors. These days, judging from the latest leaders’ summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, even Vietnam is poised to leave the Philippines behind.

Now that the Supreme Court has reversed itself and ruled that an enabling law in fact exists for using the people’s initiative to amend certain provisions of the Constitution, Cha-cha proponents should make themselves useful and push for economic reforms.

Instead Cha-cha proponents are still focused on changing the system of government.

* * *

The high tribunal had stood pat on that one, sustaining its 8-7 vote that the initiative could not be used to revise the Constitution. Changing the system of government, the high court reiterated, required a revision of the entire Constitution and not just a mere amendment.

Several articles in the Constitution will have to be completely rewritten if the presidency will be abolished and a unicameral parliament will wield both executive and legislative powers after a transition period, as envisioned by proponents of the shift to a parliamentary system.

That hasn’t stopped initiative proponents from arguing that a change in government requires a mere amendment of certain provisions and not a total revision of the Constitution.

Even as the original initiative proponents prepare for another round at the Supreme Court, "Plan B" has been set in motion, with the forces of Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. now seriously courting several senators to go along with a constituent assembly that will change the form of government.

This move is again expected to reach the Supreme Court, which will have a new chief justice when Panganiban retires on Dec. 7.

Will the new "chief" be more receptive to the arguments of those pushing for a parliamentary system? Will the new chief go along with the insistence of initiative proponents that a change in the form of government requires a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution?

Even if he – or she, if it’s Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago – is more receptive, time is running out for Cha-cha proponents.

* * *

Already surveys are coming out about likely winners in the 2007 Senate race, with the results reminding us that little has changed in the way Filipino voters pick their officials. Making election choices based chiefly on name recall rather than issues, competence or integrity is one of the biggest reasons for the sorry state of our nation.

Such survey results, if sustained, will provide a strong argument for abolishing the Senate. But the campaign period will soon be in full swing and it will then be easier to ignore calls for changing the system of government. In the first place, the arguments for a shift to a parliamentary system have never been articulated well.

Those who genuinely believe Charter change is the path to national salvation should use the recent Supreme Court ruling to implement urgent reforms in the way people do business in this country.

But the image that has persisted, as people’s initiative proponents press the shift to parliament, is of officials dancing the Cha-cha for personal rather than national salvation.

Those opposing the shift to parliament, especially those eyeing Senate seats, are using this image to discourage public support for Cha-cha.

Local government officials behind the people’s initiative can only threaten to ensure the defeat of candidates who are opposed to Charter change. The local officials might just carry out their threat.

Once the prospects for a shift to parliament are buried by campaign fever, will there be enough enthusiasm left to change the Constitution?

The disappearance of that enthusiasm will be regrettable, because as many quarters have pointed out, the Constitution, which is turning 20 next year, can use some changes.

We need to make the basic law of the land more responsive to all the sweeping changes that have occurred in the global economy and geopolitics in the past two decades.

Unfortunately, those leading the battle for change are keeping an inordinate focus on changing the power equation.