Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. have not given up on their Chacha initiative despite the contrary reaction of President Aquino. Both feel the need to amend the 1987 Constitution, particularly its economic provisions. What these provisions are both leaders of Congress have not specified beyond saying that these are too “rigid” and inflexible. Perhaps when the issues shall have been identified Congress and Malacañang may yet agree about doing a Chacha. Toward this end, the President has agreed to have the proposal studied by the economic and legal cluster of his cabinet. After such study Malacañang will perhaps decide on the matter.
PNoy’s lukewarm response to Chacha is not surprising. All the three presidents after Cory Aquino thumbed down any move to tinker with the fundamental law for reasons of their own. It is safe to surmise, however, that the reason could be fear of divisiveness which could have slowed down the development efforts of their administrations.
A president is president only once. And a six-year term is too short, as far as the incumbent is concerned, to realize his or her plan of governance. Add to this the natural desire to accomplish something monumental and to blaze a historical trail for which he can be remembered, and you will understand why Chacha is a no-no to any Malacañang occupant.
The current leadership has been chastised for not doing enough to achieve the status of a newly industrialized country for the Philippines. Although the first quarter GDP is impressive at 6.4 percent still the lingering worry of unemployment and massive poverty hung like an albatross above this nation. This, plus the unabated insurgency, the unchecked secessionist movement, and recently the alleged incursion of a foreign power into our territorial waters, are enough to keep the current Malacañang leadership in an incessant nightmarish state even sans Chacha
The Congressional leadership is right in saying that the economic provisions of the Constitution need restructuring to make these investment-friendly. But it is wrong in focusing only on this provision as it calls for an amendatory move. The truth is that there are other features of the Charter that need to be re-crafted to make these responsive to our socio-economic development goals. Some of these provisions have become anachronistic and irrelevant in light of current socio-economic and political situations.
For example, the three-year tenure of local and national officials has to be reexamined to minimize the frequency of elections and to give these officials sufficient time to realize their program of government. It’s common knowledge that to embark on a major project a gestation period of more than three years is needed. How then can a newly elected official accomplish something during his three-year term?
More critical is the need to empower regional clusters to make these more effective, responsive and prosperous units of government. Organized as distinct states and clothed with adequate authority to function as self-sustaining but interdependent bodies, these could be the answer to our turtle-paced growth as a nation in the last several decades.
Unfortunately, it’s the possibility of bringing about these radical changes that must be causing jitters among lawmakers and even the President. For one, the likelihood of creating a unicameral legislative could result – which means that many legislators would lose their jobs. For another, it could considerably diminish the political clout of Malacañang – and who is the president who would allow this to happen?
Possibilities like these are what makes any talk of Charter change an ill wind to most national leaders, including the incumbent President. Perhaps this explains why those who are toying with such change have assured their colleagues (and the President?) that only a certain aspect of the Constitution would be touched. Will this assuage the fears of the latter? Only subsequent events will tell us.
As it is, amending the Constitution seems to be an impossible dream.