To change or not to change

Legitimate grievances of citizens will be ignored by this government for as long as the lower middle, middle and upper middle classes in our society do not support them. The inter-faith rally against the Cha-Cha last Friday is the best example. The seething anger and indignation of a fairly sizable crowd was not enough to instill fear in Malacañang and the Lower House of Congress of another upheaval similar to Edsa I and II obviously because of the noticeable absence of the silent majority belonging to the middle class.

Edsa I and II were huge successes precisely because people in the middle classes of our society turned out en masse. Hence any rally for any cause especially the ones recently and presently held will not scare this administration at all for as long as this silent majority is not fully represented. The Malacañang occupants and their cohorts in Congress will just scoff and sneer at them despite the legitimacy and merit of their causes.

The junking of the legitimate impeachment complaint, the recent move reviving the Cha-Cha, and the ongoing Joc Joc Bolante jokes that make a mockery of our search for truth are adequately revolting to stir the middle class into action and heed the call to rally that should have triggered another people power revolt. But they remained on the sidelines simply because the people behind these calls are the same old politicians with self-serving interest who have had their time plundering and stealing the people’s money with impunity.

The two previous people-power revolutions were huge successes because they were spontaneous and unplanned. More so because they were not stained with the presence of politicians like an ex-president who has been convicted of plunder, a coterie of has-beens trying to get back the power, pelf and privileges they sorely miss, and a group of ambitious personalities salivating for a taste of that same power. Even with the backing of the hakot crowds from the religious sects, these movements will never succeed in toppling this government for as long as the middle class do not participate. The best example here is Edsa III composed of hakot crowds from religious groups and instigated by some Senators identified with a disgraced President. It failed because it was not spontaneously supported by the middle class.

To be sure, our Charter really needs vital changes in some of its economic and political provisions that will precisely help our country back on the road to sustainable economic progress and at the same time rid it of the current crop of politicians.

There are indeed overly protective provisions in the constitution on national patrimony that drive away investors and continue to isolate our country from the current trend of globalization in business and finance. The limitations on land ownership and the exploitation or exploration of our natural resources need some review and revision to make us more globally competitive. Even ownership of some of our businesses should be opened to the rest of the world.

Some of the political provisions in our Charter also call for direly needed changes. Even if a shift to Federal or Parliamentary system may not be so pressing or advisable as of now, the conversion of our Congress into a unicameral instead of the present bicameral body has become a must as shown by the present Congress and their useless, very expensive, unproductive and duplicitous work of legislation. There is ample truth to the observation that our present Congress is the biggest hindrance to our country’s progress and the main cause of poverty in the land. The present provision against “political dynasty” should also be amended to make it self-executing instead of being dependent on legislation by a Congress already infested with political dynasties. The qualifications of candidates for public office must also be fixed to higher standards for the position especially of national officials, than mere requirements of residence, age and literacy (able to read and write). The idea here is to ensure that candidates are chosen not on sheer popularity but on their ability to govern for the common good.

Actually the present constitution does not really exemplify an ideal Charter that is supposed to be the fundamental and basic law of the land. It is too lengthy, ambiguous and verbose. For these alone it really has to be revised. This is not to denigrate the members of the Constitutional Commission who framed it. They really worked so hard but they were under time pressure and under circumstances where the dire effects of a dictatorial regime were still felt. This amendment or revision is mainly for the purpose of improving it. After all the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.

The bigger issues however are the timing and the manner of the changes. Definitely, it should not be done now amidst all the suspicions, dissensions and reasonable doubts raised by the public as to the personal and selfish motives of those behind the move to Cha-Cha. And definitely it should not be done through the Constituent Assembly (Con Ass) now initiated in the Lower House with their twisted interpretation of Congress voting jointly where their superiority in numbers are sure to prevail.

The only other alternative for the amendment and revision is therefore a Constitutional Conventional called for the purpose. Admittedly it is more expensive than a Con Ass but the expense is more worth it. Besides it can only be done after 2010 when the atmosphere in the country will hopefully be more peaceful and stable as to be conducive to true changes for the good of our country and people.