To dance the
cha-cha? – not now!

I have always been against Cha-Cha or charter change for now and weeks ago there were again noises to amend the 1987 Constitution. I thought Cha-Cha is a sort of Lazarus. It always appears to come to life again when we thought it lies on its death bed.

It is undoubted and many opinion polls attest to this, chiefly because of the motives of the cha-cha dancers are perceived to lengthen the term of the present office holders. The parliamentary form of government is an old song that has not caught fire. However, it may be the vehicle for some ambitious (and persistent) personalities to come back to power. That’s the tale of some people.

The main reason I’m against the cha-cha (don’t get me wrong – there may be a time for amendment but not now) is that it is a wrong diagnosis of our ills. The reason for a lot of our troubles is that we do not implement the constitution and the laws that emanate from it.

I understand that some proponents underscore that amendments will only cover economic matters. Like for instance the following:

1. Opening Ownership of Philippine Lands to foreigners
2. Removing 40 percent limit of foreigners in Phil. Corp.

This is to open our economy to foreigners.

Opponents of these proposals say.

We’re not a big country like the U.S. Our size is only equivalent to that of California, one of the 49 States of the Union.

China and Vietnam do not allow sale of land to foreigners.

Whatever the proposals are, whatever its merits, they have to go through a rigorous and profound debates. However, when politicians, the traditional ones, get into the act, their agenda predominates and a lot of good sense flies out of the window.

For now, the greatest concern is the transformation of our culture, our society so that corruption in the innards of the government is minimized. The culture of waste in the process of governance ought to be focused on and dealt with. The sense that the money of the government comes from the labor of the people should be emphasized. The people in the government should treat public money with the highest respect. Maybe that could help conserve public money. I submit that the new administration is on the right tract as it exhibits a bias towards economy and a distaste for wasteful spending. The current hassle over-extravagant “gifts” to top military personnel is a harbinger for change. Maybe these are signs that we are waking up – that we are alarmed enough to change.

Incidentally, permit me to quote from the editorial of the IBP Law Journal (Nov. 1999) on Charter Change:

“It bears repeating that a constitution, in contradistinction to a mere statute, has a more permanent character. Constant tinkering with it conduces to instability and throws a shadow on the millions of those who overwhelmingly approved the 1987 constitution.

Curiously, Japan which is a model of economic development has not amended or modified the constitution decreed by Gen. MacArthur many, many years ago. Does this say something?

It also appears clear that many ills attributed to the present constitution may be remedied by the passage of ordinary statutes. Why then should we resort to surgery when mere medicine can resolve the problem? Or is it not very probable that there is nothing wrong with the constitution but that those in power lack the competence, the vision to make the constitution work? These questions overwhelm us and they demand an answer.

A staggering 86 percent of the populations are opposed to charter change. Apparently, they feel in their bones that the country is crawling with more severe problems than tinkering with the constitution.”

I think that the sentiments and observations expressed in the lawyers’ journal are as relevant now, as they were then.*

back to top