Explaining charter change

Mike Enriquez had to do that, of course. He was speaking, and he coughed, and as Michael V. had constantly parodied, “excuse me po!” And everybody were clapping their hands.

He, along with Atty Chito Gascon and Ms Susan Ople (of the OneVoice campaign), were the guest speakers of the somewhat hyped charter change forum just concluded at the William Shaw Little Theater. Now, if anybody had been reading (or was even aware) of the Cha-cha flyers the OPres (or the Office of the Student Council President, if you don’t know) have released weeks back, they’ve been announcing this thing at its planning stages. Just this Monday, I received a text message from Airra about this thing, and apparently it’s taken off. I attended in lieu of the FAST 2005 LA Core, along with publicity head Meh, and there we were, waiting for another fifteen-minute delay with later applause.

Atty Gascon was first there - he was talking to a few of his students (he also happens to teach in DLSU) about some sweets he gave away. “Hindi na maanghang yan,” he said, and those seated were laughing. The forum kicked off fifteen minutes late and had the two other speakers missing. Gascon then proceeded to explain the “process” behind the controversial Cha-cha, complete with a warning of his own: “it’s impossible to be objective.”

We are facing, according to him,  a “crisis of democratic institutions”, explaining the natural hindrances, like the questionable legitimacy of the current administration. As such, according to him, the government has resorted to legal shortcuts to pursue charter change. Thus, according to him, social problems remain despite economic growth, and people grow apathetic towards political engagement “at the national level”.

He maintains that he has always been for charter change - for the past ten years, he even says. (Or I could be misquoting him.) The problem with current efforts to change the constitution - containing already familiar changes such as a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government - is the way it is being pushed. A people’s initiative under the name Sigaw ng Bayan has apparently collected ten million signatures supporting the proposed changes to the constitution, but many contend that the method is illegal since it isn’t back by any enabling law, as with the PIRMA case a decade back. Also, the constitution calls for a people’s initiative only for specific amendments, and not for entire revisions. And, Gascon adds, it is apparently backed by the government, and not by the people.

It may be recalled that the constitution states that amendments or revisions can only be done through a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention. People’s initiative can only be used to push forward specific amendments - in the case of PIRMA back in 1995, the removal of term limits.

Ople came forward next, after her arrival with Enriquez were acknowledged by Gascon (and some ordered applause, even). Full of quotations from her late father, senator Blas Ople, and from other people, she points out why she is against the current efforts to push charter change. She quoted Fr Joaquin Bernas as saying in one of his articles, pointing out that the drafts of the new constitution actually remove the limitations imposed on the President. She goes on to show what was added and removed from the house draft of the new constitution, and there we go - phrases on martial law, approval of loans and the like.

She would later present the OneVoice position - in a nutshell, a discontinuance to the “fake ‘people’s initiative’”; electoral reforms, with the 2007 elections acting as an indirect memorandum on the administration; and charter change after 2007, only if necessary, without the incumbents benefiting in any way.

By then I realized; their points aren’t so bad after all.

Enriquez provided, in my opinion, a sense of objectivity to the event. He wasn’t there to tell people more about the issue - he arrived without slides, even - but to make us ponder, to collate everything, even. He points out the complexity of the issue itself, and why we should care about it. His points resounded through me the most: since there is no clear direction about what we as a country actually intend to do, investors shy away and we don’t know where to go. This proud Lasallian even made a quick interview with the other panelists before proceeding to the open forum - actually, one short question from yours truly.

Anyway, he asked the panelists, “when is the best time to change the constitution?”

Gascon answered resoundingly, “when GMA is out of office.”

The problem, as was the seeming concensus at the end of the forum, was not whether charter change must be done, but when. Enriquez even mentioned some calling Cha-cha not as charter change but as character change, with the others pushing for transparency in the processes and a change of values. Further resounding, change of values.

“Is there still hope?” Enriquez asked.

Of course, the collective reply went, although not similarly worded.

Earlier, “why are you wearing blue?”

He was just joking at me. I got his autograph and left after a lot more have already left - the forum had passed the 14.30 mark, and they continued nevertheless until they asked Enriquez to cut short his speech.