Don't waste your time on them, waste it on us

That’s the gist of the message of the Partido Liberal ad which asks the people of the Philippines to “Stop the Gloria Forever Constitution.” It gives no credit to (some) Filipinos who can think.

These Filipinos know why former Senator Franklin Drilon and presidential aspirant Senator Mar Roxas are hell-bent on stopping a congressional proposal for Charter change. By the way, this is a duty of legislators mandated by the Constitution. So what the protesters are saying to Congress is “they better stop doing their job and just obey the real powers in this country – the Church, business, Opposition – orchestrated by foreign predators since the 2004 elections. If Charter change is proposed to the people by constituent assembly, it’s good-bye to the presidential ambitions of Senator Mar Roxas, a chartered member of the oligarchy.

His partner in this enterprise is former Senate President Frank Drilon, whose talents for opportunity have been tried and tested in several administrations. He positioned himself in the Marcos, Aquino and Ramos administrations but only briefly with Arroyo when the opportunity of heading a Liberal Party to spearhead Sen. Mar Roxas’ presidency was presented to him.

For this enterprise to shut out Charter change and make way for another Roxas presidency, he closely works with Friedrich Naumann Foundation. This is a German foundation which was said to be behind an “action plan” to spur anti-China protests over Tibet during the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

*      *      *

Senator Mar is a charming fellow, very wealthy and suitably pedigreed. But I do not think he is the right guy at this juncture of our history when we seek more radical means to address our problems. Still he has powerful foreign friends and he is their anointed one. All the other senators wanting to be president will have to step aside. The senator belongs to the political dynasty started by his grandfather, the original Manuel Roxas.

Let us read what history says of this first Roxas. “He defends his position on parity rights which he deems will aid the country’s rehabilitation, giving the Americans equal access to our resources means more access to revenues and aids. He also cites the opponent’s plan of borrowing from the World Bank next to impossible as the institution is not yet in a position to lend money, and will not be able to for a while. He concludes that in order to rebuild the country, the introduction of foreign capital is a must and the people should not worry about foreign domination because laws will be strictly implemented for the benefit of the people. A plebiscite was held on the amendment to the Constitution pursuant to resolution of Congress dated September 18, 1946, granting United States citizens right to the disposition and utilization of Philippine natural resources or the Parity Rights. This occurred on March 11, 1947.

A number of Filipinos supported the agreement due to them being under the influence of colonial mentality. However a number of Filipinos also disapproved of the agreement basically because it breached the Constitution that states the resources of the Philippines are for Filipinos alone. The agreement was later revoked.” At least there was a plebiscite.

*      *      *

The constitutional convention route is a ruse designed to distract the public from the heart of the debate. It has happened in the past. This comes from the usual bag of tricks along with threats from a religious charlatan’s followers rally each time that Charter change is proposed. It has happened so many times I am surprised that the call for a convention should come as surprise or made to appear as if it is happening for the first time and pretend it is the way out of an impasse.

Two things can happen. I’ll grant that we may or may not have a constitutional convention depending on how far the keepers of the status can intimidate Congress. No matter if the lawmakers keep reminding the critics that they are not changing the Constitution. As lawmakers they have the duty to make proposals and submit to a plebiscite for approval or rejection of the people.

From past experience I am inclined to believe we will not have one. But if we did, think of the millions of pesos for delegates (who will mostly come from the same political pool) we will waste as if we are not burdened enough with highly paid senators with bloated unaudited funds and with absolutely no certainty that the desired reforms will be on the agenda. Indeed, the possibility of it being subverted yet again as it was during the Marcos regime is just as real. Instead of a parliament we had a dictatorship. Do you think the politicians who have just spent a fortune in the 2010 elections, especially presidential candidates, would now give up their positions without getting back what they had spent? It is time we stopped pretending and accept political realities. The system needs to be changed now.

I cannot understand why if Filipinos admit that Charter change is urgent they should fall for the swan song “it’s better if we have a constitutional convention.” If the aim is to address urgent problems ie the war in Mindanao, the waste and expense of presidential elections that lead to graft and corruption, then the sooner and cheaper we have it, the better. So who is wasting time? As it is we have wasted enough time. The constitutional convention after 2010 is a euphemism for saying “it will not happen”. Forget it.

*      *      *

Reply to SWS: I am glad that Mr. Mahar Mangahas has replied to what he called “my rendition of SWS survey.” I hope he can persuade other media writers that the survey was not about maliciously linking Charter change and the issue of term limits.

Mangahas says he merely asked about term extensions without referring to any names. “In truth, SWS asked a battery of four questions that described the current term limits of the President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives, without mentioning any names, and then asked whether the limits should be maintained.”

So why did the survey which mentions no names and did not refer to Charter change end up with the headline Majority oppose Charter change — SWS? That story came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on November 26, 2008, the newspaper for which Mr. Mangahas writes. You’d think he would even try to correct the Inquirer story that the survey has now become the basis stopping Charter change.

In an environment fraught with political allegations determined to put down Charter change yet again, I am surprised that Mr. Mangahas did not think that conducting a survey on term limits had anything to do with Charter change.

So my answer to Mangahas reply that “Carmen Pedrosa’s rendition of SWS question on term limits is false” is false. The intent of that survey is there for all to see even if he now claims that is not what he meant. Phew.