Be wary of Cha-Cha
28 Nov 2008 
8
• 4373 views, 3 today
With the cat out of the bag, pro-administration congressmen have now come out calling for Charter Change, supposedly to put in place a parliamentary system before 2010. Speaker of the House Prospero Nograles, one of the president’s staunchest allies, claims that it is the aim of the “majority coalition to shun term extension [sic] of incumbent public officials under the guise of constitutional reforms.”
But isn’t this move indeed a guise? a ruse?
In the event that the Philippines converts to a parliamentary form of government, Macapagal-Arroyo would be eligible to run for office in her district, and would be able to vie for the prime ministership. Ergo, these politicians’ desire for constitutional amendments is ultimately tantamount to term extension. Furthermore, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano of the minority bloc reiterates that, in a traditional parliamentary system, there would be no term limits for members of the new parliament.
In her relatively brief history, our country has undergone a number of changes in the form of government, not to mention various versions of the Constitution. There is even a call for federalism (which I support in principle — but that’s an entirely different topic). Unfortunately, no matter what form or guise, Filipino politicians have remained the same. This begs the question, Do we really need to change the form of government yet again?
The Makati Business Club, which opposes Cha-Cha, puts it very succinctly:
The world is experiencing the worst financial crisis in decades and the Philippines will not be spared the ill effects of this crisis.
The full extent of the negative impact on our economy has yet to unfold. Given such circumstances, what the country needs at this time is certainly not the haphazard change of the fundamental law but a strong and credible leadership that enjoys the support of the Filipino people.
The Filipino people do look forward to national renewal through general elections in 2010.
If you are against Charter Change (for whatever purpose proposed), express your sentiment here by leaving a comment. (If you are pro-Cha-Cha, by all means, you are welcome to state your views as well.) If you are a blogger, write about it. Another way is to join online fora and groups that oppose Cha-Cha. For instance, there is a Facebook group dedicated to such an advocacy.
Author Info
We need the change. It doesn't matter to us Mindanaoan who resides at the palace, I don't care if Arroyo remains in power till she tires. History is replete with story of neglect, and Mindanao has stagnated for so long.
I won't be bambozzled by the political rhetoric specially coming from manila centric politicians who dreams of oneday becoming the next president of this basketcase of asia. There are so much to be changed with the constitution, that have been discussed thouroughly since the time of Ramos.
The MBC? They are only after profit. They are not even paying the taxes in Dabaw. They set up a business enterprise in your place, but they pay their taxes in Makati or Quezon City.
I want change, even if that is only a small window that would lead to a more autonomous local government, or a federated philippines. I would rather try my luck with a newer system, than be stuck with the old and tested to fail system that brought us to where we are today.
You have a valid point there, Luvin. I am not against amending the Constitution if the objective is pure, with no hidden agenda. My point in this article, however, is being wary of Cha-Cha initiatives that will lead to extending the term of GMA. I do care if she stays in power — not because of anything personal against her, but because there has to be strict adherence to the rule of law.
Regarding the MBC. I won't ascribe any positivity or negativity to them (at this point). But, they do have a point: that we need a leader who can truly effect change. A charismatic leader who can rally the whole country and inspire positive change. And that person is not the sitting president.
And that's politics. Positive change may come from a less charismatic leader. Estrada is charismatic , but he gifted us with 220 billion deficit in less than two years.
We really need to change the form and the system of government, because our existing system is dysfunctional.
We need to change the taxation system, the electoral system (the multiparty system).
We have todo it now, but we must make clear the aspects that we want to change.
If we postpone it to someother time, then we may never see it happen in our lifetime.
I don't understand Luvin's arguments.
First, the positive developments of federalism can be accomplished through devolution like in the U.K.. This can simply be done by Amending the Local Government Code of 1991 granting more power to the provinces and by automatically making the Bureau of Internal Revenues release the allocated LGU funds every quarter. These two things would remove the patronage of the president from the LGU (since she delays LGU payments to opposition strongholds) and would give more autonomy to the provinces. Furthermore, neither one requires a constitutional amendment.
Second, the taxation system does not need an amend to be rectified. You simply need to amend the Tax Code of 1997. Again no amendment needed. The tax code and how the government collects taxation has nothing to do with the constitution itself. The constitution does not even specify that the taxes should all go to Manila, but in fact states:
"Article X, Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units."
Note the key word, resources (read taxes). Then go on to Section 5:
"Article X Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments."
The Constitution addresses those issues you raised. Its the Congress that is not following the constitution yet you want to trust these same people in rewriting it? Geeh, talk about "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". One shouldn't be saying "yeah charter change! charter change! charter change!". One should be yelling "implement correctly! implement correctly! implement correctly!" Its actually funny to me because most people I know who are saying we need chacha has never even read the 1987 Constitution. How can you promote changing the constitution when you haven't even read it thoroughly?
Our 1987 Constitution is not perfect; far from it it gives too much power to the Congress. But its a good constitution and tinkering around with it just because we are told its for the best or to promote some idea that is already enshrined in spirit of the Constitution seems to me opportunistic and is a dangerous precedent especially given the fact that most people are against it and the Congress should be buckling down on the World Financial Crisis instead of playing with term limits.
Third, not caring who is in Malacanang Palace is pretty irresponsible and smacks of tribalism. The president is the biggest patron in the entire country. The way that monies are allocated and when they are allocated depend on who is in Malacanang. For example, when Ramos was president, Mindanao received 22% of the GDP and recieved its allocated funds on time. When Macapagal-Arroyo came to power, Mindanao was reduced to 11% though it contributes 24% of the total GDP of the country though technically speaking Congress had allocated 16% for projects in Mindanao but alas the 5% is lost somewhere. Another point is that the president is also chief negotiator of loans and trade treaties. Not caring about who is president just because you're in Mindanao pretty suggests you are not looking out for the best interests of your children and the future generations of Filipinos who will have to pay for these loans and will have to abide by these treaties.
You may complain that corruption is bad and you don't care about who is president, well, guess what? That's why corruption is bad. Its because of Filipinos who don't care and think only in terms of their own little province rather than grasping the consequences of the actions of our government on our entire nation. That type of tribalism is counter-productive to those who fought and died for our country's independence.
I agree with your points regarding the absence of any need to change the Constitution in order to implement changes towards good government.
But for the record, I personally care who resides in Malacanang. And many Mindanaoans do as well.
Dhoy,
Nice take down. I got a very good lecture.
I agree with you that intime realease of IRA share would do a lot for LGU’s. And also, if the allocation is increased to about 50 to 60 percent.
I am not going to defend my self on taxation. I know so little about that. All I want is for big business organizations to pay taxes to locale where they do business.
Tribalism or parochialism. That is how I am. Philippines certainly needs the nationalism of Japan of America, but if a parochial attitude is what is needed for Mindanao to develop, then I would go for it. Because I think the development of Mindanao will catalyzed the development of other regions, thus in the long run would be better for the country.
I do care for my country as I do care for the future of my children. I was at EDSA 1 because I care for our country. I want Mindanao to grow because I want my children and my grandchildren to have a more progressive place to live. And I know you do, too. We only view it quite differently.
We already fought so many battles, we already have several presidents, but still it is thesame. The person there is apparently at fault, but more than the president is the system.
So I would rather try my luck in a new charter, than be chained in this proven to be dysfunctional system. Let us change our system now.
IMHO, Cha-Cha at this point is unacceptable, because there is a danger of having the sitting president’s term extended. An administration that’s supposedly on its way out has no business in meddling with the Constitution. The fact that the majority of Congress is comprised of pro-administration House representatives is an added factor to the danger.
I’ll say it now: I’m all for more independece for Mindanao, perhaps a federal system. But not now. When the next president sits, that’s the better time to go for cha-cha.
Blogie,
I would like to reprise what Carmen Pedrosa said, or the idea of it; “If we can’t do it now, there is no assurance that it could be done after 2010.”
The people behind the opposition have thesame argument during the Ramos time. They have thesame arguments until now. The fear and hatred of Gloria or her possible stay on power is getting the most bytes.
We can do cha-cha and have its effectivity after 2010. It should be made clear not to benefit the very people who proposes it. And we must trust our leader, that they would have the decency to do what is right for our country.
Our distrust with our leader is getting the best of us. We must learn to try to do what could be done within our limited space. Our leaders are wanting. There is no question with that. Infact I castigate them inside me, but the pragmatic way would be to balance the two. They maybe wanting, but they are also doing something positive.
The better time is now, because the window of opportunity is open. After 2010, it will again be closed.