Charter Change
Charter Change
Sol Samodio
 |
| Source: Licas News Philippines |
Admittedly, I was one of those people who had heard about Cha-Cha, or Charter Change, for some time
now but never really knew what it was about. All I knew was that whenever I happen to pass by the UP Diliman campus, huge tarpaulins or street tags that say “NO TO CHA-CHA” cause an amount of intrigue as to what it is. It was until the term was encountered again during our Readings in Philippine History class wherein our professor comprehensively discussed its prevalence today. It was stressed by our professor that our constitution, the 1987 Constitution, is the supreme law of the land and the basis of rights and liberties we have as Filipinos. Changing this is not an easy feat. If I were to have an immediate reaction to the problem at hand, I could firmly stand by the statements of those tarpaulins in Diliman. I have learned that having constitutional change may shift our current struggles in upholding a proper economic trajectory, but it is not the most helpful way to better our situation. Essentially, the politicians who are pushing for constitutional change claim its intentions to be toward bettering our economy through opening foreign direct investments such as education and advertising. However, based on the thread of actions in pushing for Cha-cha, boosting the Philippine economy is rather a veil for an underlying intention, which is for solely political gain. These changes would most likely be implemented to expand the powers of these politicians. So with all this new information at hand, I wondered why it is that not a lot of people (such as myself) know what these reforms are all about and how it can potentially shift our ways of living?
Insight
Constitutional Change (Con-Cha), more commonly referred to now as Charter Change (Cha-cha), is simply an initiative to emanate any changes to the existing constitution. As stated earlier, it is the supreme law of the land and was made to fight against abuse and corruption of those in power. The current constitution we are under, The 1987 Constitution advocates for protecting human rights and to prevent authoritarianism. So, why is the talk of constitutional change suddenly prevalent after almost 40 years? Why is it an initiative that is given more attention to by politicians rather than focusing on the immediate needs of the country such as our educational crisis and the alarming rise of poverty? Before diving into these burning questions, we first need to establish how Charter Change can be implemented and how it can be beneficial or detrimental to our current system today.
This can be spearheaded in three ways: Constitutional Assembly (CON-ASS), Constitutional Convention (CON-CON, and People’s Initiative (PI). CON-ASS is executed through the Congress of the Philippines gathering to propose changes to the constitution. The notable advantage to this method is that it is fast and inexpensive, however, the downside is that the people involved are those in power and there is little to no representation from the masses. The second way, CON-CON, is organized by inviting delegates from the masses who will gather to propose changes. These delegates are selected to represent corresponding sectors such as agriculture, education, and Indigenous Peoples (IPs). Unlike CON-ASS, the people are given a platform to express their needs without the influence of politicians, however this initiative is costly and time-consuming. Lastly, the third method is through People’s Initiative (PI), which is established by starting a petition initiated by the masses that includes the changes they want in the constitution. This method must reach the quota of votes all over the country in order to be implemented.
Now that a brief understanding has been established, we now go back to our first burning question, why is Charter Change making a comeback as of late? This initiative was resurfaced during the Duterte Administration through a controversial proposal to change our unitary form of government to a federal one. The former president’s intention for this reform was to properly distribute the wealth and power among the land. However, this drastic change was not met with public acclaim, as well as among politicians as it was against political dynasties. A main point of contention was that there may be more allocated funds to sustain a supposed state, but with fewer people governing over these lands, the more widespread corruption can be. Now with our current slate of leaders, the Marcos Jr. Administration has also had attempts to implement Charter Change, which marks two failed attempts. The first wave was organized by the Congress of the Philippines through Constitutional Convention (CON-CON, which mainly encouraged term extension (amounting to a decade), tandem voting, and opening sectors for foreign investment to incite economic development. The fault of this first wave is that relatives of politicians are not prohibited from joining, so the set up would look more like a Constitutional Assembly (composed of the congress), rather than upholding the intention that this method is dedicated to having proper representation across the different sectors of the masses. The reason for this being unsuccessful is simply because the Senate did not support its passing. The second failed attempt at Charter Change was marked by a signature drive conducted throughout the country as a form of People’s Initiative (PI). In order to get into the good graces of the Senate, the ones that turned it down the first time, the President offered for them to take charge of spearheading Cha-cha and stressed that this was for economic reform, and not political. The Senate finally agreed to the arrangement. At this time, the signature drive has garnered enough signatures for passing. Confused about the arrangement of having two Charter Change initiatives simultaneously in motion, the Senate investigated the viability of the People’s Initiatives as it was under the suspicion that it had garnered the quota of signatures in a very short period of time (which insinuates that there may have been money involved to complete the drive as soon as possible). From this, the House of Representatives has urged the Senate to stop investigating as there have been no malicious interventions associated with the People’s initiative. The Commission on Election also joined the conversation and stated that they are not ready for the People's Initiative as they do not have enough existing rules and regulations for this to be enacted. From that point forward, no further developments came about for Charter Change.
From this, we can observe that pushing for Charter Change predominantly favors politicians, especially those who are part of political dynasties. If a large percentage of those seated in power come from political dynasties, more chances are they will shift the laws to favor their own businesses by fortifying their powers through term extensions, as well as discarding initiatives that ban political dynasties from governing.
Learning
In order to expand my learning on the matter, and to see if other people have a certain amount of awareness of this, I sought to conduct a brief survey to people coming from different backgrounds about their knowledge on Charter Change. It is clear that talking about a very charged subject is not the most welcoming when it comes to having a casual conversation, and in my approach to interviewing, the last thing I want to happen is to overburden the people I am consulting with. My goal is to focus on their immediate response on the matter, and not so much trying to rigidly intellectualize it in the process. Here are the simple questions that I will be inquiring to five different respondents:
What is your immediate knowledge when it comes to the topic of Charter Change and the discourse revolving around it?
Are you in favor of Charter Change? Why or why not?
How does Charter Change directly affect the industry that you are a part of?
I tapped five individuals from various sectors, namely education, marketing, architecture, medicine, and creative industries; who were willing to participate. The brief interview was done through Facebook Messenger and I transferred their responses in Google Forms so that it will be collated in one platform. The following summary of my takeaway from the five respondents’ answers are as follows:
Jill is a college professor and creative industries researcher. She states that her awareness of Charter Change falls on having a resurgence in recent years in order to review potentially outdated laws. She also mentions her knowledge of the Duterte Administration’s attempt to charter change– shifting from unitary form of government to federal, and why it was unsuccessful. Overall, she is in favor of carefully reviewing the constitution and ensuring that the proposals for changes are for the masses and not only serve the current politicians. As a part of the education and the creative industries sector, she hopes that in the opportunity of reviewing our constitution, the proposals will especially strengthen the importance of the mentioned sectors she is a part of.
Kin is a student undertaking a Bachelor’s Degree in Landscape Architecture. He is not in favor of Charter Change. He underscores that Charter Change is a discussion for every administration and the emerging objective of these attempts for amendment is to open up our country’s resources and land to foreign investment. Comprehensively discussing his knowledge in Philippine Architecture on a global scale, he stresses that Charter Change would substantially shift the definition of ‘Filipino Architecture’. He hypothesizes that if Charter Change prioritizes opening more opportunities for foreign investment, the country’s attempt to adapt globally accepted standards in architecture and urban planning may potentially backfire given our current economic climate. Local spatial issues, poverty, and unemployment will become more prevalent should these changes come about the Philippines haphazardly.
Sid is an executive creative director at an advertising agency. He admits that he is not too aware about the current discussions on charter change. His immediate knowledge of the matter lies in the initiative on amending some parts of the constitution to allow more foreign ownership and investments to make the country more internationally competitive. Coming from the advertising sector, he makes it a point that Charter Change will affect the dynamics between international holding companies and local management teams, and that the latter will have more authority over the other should more foreign ownership be implemented.
Jehan is a nurse and healthcare worker. He shares that he is knowledgeable in the most recent developments pertaining to Charter Change, namely the attempts of the Marcos Jr. Administration and their motivation to push the amendment for the country's economic growth through opening up more avenues for foreign investment. He is not in favor of Charter Change as he believes that we the country should explore other options in improving our economy before resorting to the amendment of our constitution. He stresses that before such a change, we must first address our immediate national issues that effect our economy such as corruption. As a part of the healthcare sector, the introduction to more opportunities for foreign investment will greatly compromise the landscape of our local healthcare companies.
Kai is a freelancer and a student taking up a Bachelor's Degree in Arts Studies. They are well-versed with the most recent developments regarding Charter Change, sharing that these attempts happened through constitutional convention and that there are notable reasons why this was not met with support from the masses, namely the potential abuse of power from the politicians. They highlighted that they are not in favor of Charter Change as it should be done when the country has achieved economical and social stability, and that the intentions for undergoing an amendment should not be taken advantage of by our leaders. As a worker in the arts industry, they provided examples of laws that could be improved on that would benefit their industry, such as the Eddie Garcia law. They also envision that Charter Change can be utilized to develop our arts and culture sector namely through providing more avenues for arts education and integration, although they expressed that they are doubtful that these would be given focus to given the current neglect of this sector in our country.
From these responses, we can observe that any changes in our constitution ripples through every sector in our country and it could affect us for the better or worse. I have also observed that the respondents are reflecting upon the motivations of recent administrations for Charter Change, and that they are generally opposed to proposals that will only benefit the politicians in power. The exchange of ideas around the amendment of the constitution generates a sense of empowerment and awareness; a reminder that although we are from different walks of life in this country, we are still all in the same boat and any critical changes will surely make its way into our own lives.
Comments
Post a Comment