The 1987 Constitution primarily returns the presidential form of

government with a bicameral Congress from the parliamentary

form espoused by the 1973 Constitution, with the inclusion of
several check-and-balance mechanisms among the three branches
of government: judiciary, executive and legislative. These include
allowing the president to proclaim martial law or suspend the writ
of habeas corpus, but the suspension may not exceed 60 days and
can be revoked by the a Congress majority. Meanwhile, the
judiciary (via the Judicial and Bar Council) needs to submit a list
of nominees for the president to choose from when appointing
members of the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts.

The 1987 Constitution also created the two autonomous regions in

the country—the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) and the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)--as
well as several government agencies such as the Commission on
Human Rights, the Judicial and Bar Council, and the Office of the
Ombudsman. Filipino was declared as the national language.

The more I try to understand the so-called Philippine charter

change debate, the more I realize that it is not a debate at all. The
two sides are not talking about the same things, so there is no way
of really weighing one side against the other. According to the pro
charter change side, the shift to the unicameral-parliamentary
system would streamline government, spur development, and make
the country overcome corruption. The opponents of charter change
point out to the so-called transitory provisions which provide for a
concentration of power in the present president, the automatic
extension of the terms of elected officials till 2010 (when many
terms would have expired in 2007), and the concentration of power
on the present legislators from the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
On what, at first glance, is a side issue, there seems to at least be
two sides. This is the issue of the national patrimony provisions.
The charter change proposals of the House of Representatives and
that of the Consultative Commission (ConCom) clearly want to
open up ownership of land, natural resources, public utilities and
mass media to foreigners, because according to them, this will
result in national development etc. And of course, the opponents of
charter change are saying that this will complete the sell-off of our
national patrimony to foreigners, and that these steps will not result
in economic gains for the country.

This clash on the issue of national patrimony is, in a sense,

overblown. After all, hasn’t the present government already found
ways to circumvent constitutional restrictions in order to get
foreigners to operate and lease utilities and mining concessions?
The thing that is now limiting the entry of foreign mining
companies in the Philippines is the opposition from the Catholic
Church hierarchy, and not the Constitution. And I very much doubt
whether opening up what little is still closed to foreign investment
would spur economic development.

Thus, we are now saddled with a charter change non-debate.

And then, there is the more interesting (from the spectator’s point
of view, that is) struggle regarding the technicalities of how to
change the constitution. The House of Representatives is trying to
push the point of a 2/3 vote as meaning 2/3 of the total members of
the House of Representatives and the Senate, even if these
legislators are all from the House of Representatives. This is a
creative interpretation, and will be unique in the world - anywhere
where the legislature has two chambers, they are required to get the
required majority votes separately, unless the law specifically says
that they should sit jointly for certain decisions. The House is
trying to do everything to push their creative interpretation of the
2/3 vote requirement; but this will clearly get nowhere.
And the so-called people’s initiative is also getting stranded in a lot
of legalese. It seems like it is anything but a people’s initiative,
with all the government bodies tinkering with the process. It will
indeed be a surprise if the Supreme Court accepts the Sigaw ng
Bayan etc initiative as valid.

The charter change issue is clearly getting nowhere. But what can
we conclude from all this?
First of all, it really seems like the whole charter change issue or
debate is one giant smokescreen (or red herring, if one prefers that
analogy). With both the content and the procedure going nowhere,
why on earth is the government still pushing it? As long as all eyes
are on the charter change issue, other issues including that of the
Garci-tapes scandal become less prominent in the public eye. Also,
legislators are less prone to be anti-charter change or anti-GMA
because they have everything to gain if charter change “transitory
provisions” are implemented.

The second conclusion that one could draw from the current
charter change issue is that there seems to be a consensus that there
is something wrong with the Philippine political system, and that it
needs some radical changes. While many people don’t agree with
the currently proposed set of amendments to the Constitution; a lot
of these people are in favor of some changes, at least if these
would help get rid of the corrupt and inept politicians currently
running the country.
It is a pity that this underlying base of support for fundamental
political change is being used by both sides in order to push their
various short-term aims. What we need now is a call for genuine
discussions on how best to design a political system that fits the
Philippines today.
What we need now is a real debate on charter change