Half empty or half full?

As I write this, this year’s State of the Nation Address by the President is still an hour or so away, and already I have a bad case of indigestion caused by those who, not having heard the address, are touting it or disparaging it.

Some, like most in the political opposition in both Houses, say they are boycotting the speech. Others in that bloc insist that they have never, since GMA assumed office, deigned to grace the halls of Congress, albeit in joint session assembled, during such a "non-event" as the annual SONA. Even if those are the occasions when the gods, as it were, descend from Mount Olympus, all they do is praise themselves for the wonderful work that they have done and are about to do for us mere mortals.

On the other hand, the majority are already saying that this will be a "different" speech, studded with useful details, on the "miracle" the Chief has wrought on our once-moribund economy. The majority is reportedly determined to fill the galleries to the rafters, to make up for the vacant seats on the floor. They are also aware that the applause meter is on, and nosy journalists will once again be counting how many times GMA is "interrupted" by applause during her speech.

Majority solons and their legions up in the bleachers can be expected to be literally jumping up in their seats at every opportunity. Head cheerleader shall, one again, be the Speaker. Seated with him in the Presiding Officer’s rostrum will be the new Senate President, Manny Villar, who was installed in his lofty office earlier in the day.

People will be studying Villar’s expressions during the speech to see if, and how, he will differ from the glum Franklin Drilon who basically sat on hands in last year’s SONA, while the Speaker was conspicuous by his irrepressible enthusiasm and hyperactive hands which seemed like perpetually clanging cymbals.

We shall all know soon enough. I shall reserve all comment until I have observed the gavel-to-gavel television coverage and listened to THE SPEECH. Even as I watch on TV the run-up to zero hour, I notice the upper galleries remain unoccupied. However, a typhoon’s left a lot of rain in its wake and flooded streets leading to the Batasan Complex. This then may not yet be an indication of the eventual attendance.

* * *

Perhaps purely coincidentally, or perhaps not, a new survey has been released by Pulse Asia for the period June 24 to July 8, based on 1,200 interviews of adults nationwide. The results aren’t really surprising. Among other findings, Pulse Asia says that approval of the President’s performance remains at a low 26 percent, while her trust ratings are still at a dismal 23 percent.

According to Pulse Asia, these ratings are nowhere near her average job approval and trust ratings during the period 2001 to 2004. During those halcyon days, it seems, her approval ratings averaged 46 to 56, and average trust ratings reached 40 to 51 percent, both levels virtually stratospheric when compared with today’s earth-bound figures.

But would you believe that Palace spinmeisters are essentially on cloud nine with Pulse Asia’s latest figures? They are delirious with joy because, low as the ratings are, they are significantly higher than last year’s. The President’s job approval rating actually went from 19 to 26 percent while her trust rating improved from 17 to 23 percent.

Put another way, while 58 percent didn’t like her performance last year, only 44 percent are in that category today. While 59 percent distrusted her last year, only 47 percent distrust her today. Thus, all the President’s men, while professing disinclination to sit on laurels, are reportedly patting themselves on their collective back.

On the other hand, Pulse Asia did have this rather disquieting observation: "No President before her has experienced as extended a period of low public esteem; whereas public disenchantment in terms of low approval and trust ratings generally improve for Philippine presidents within two or three quarters, President Arroyo’s deflated approval and trust ratings have proven less tractable and outright improvements in public assessments of her performance and trustworthiness have been slow in coming."

That may be so, but I wonder what effect unfavorable surveys like Pulse Asia’s or, for that matter, the Social Weather Stations’, have on the Palace occupant. I suspect little or none, once it is established that the point of no return has been reached, meaning it seems futile to try to reverse an apparently irreversible trend.

At that point, I suppose, "low public esteem" is deemed to be a small price to pay for resolutely doing the "right thing." The conviction sets in that, in the last analysis, the final and most reliable judgment is that of history, not the popular perception of this last week or last month.

This conviction is usually indicative of an unshakable determination to hunker down for the long haul. While this may be good news for those optimists who think she can still rebound, it’s bad news for those who think she’s more than used up her chances.

* * *

The report that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines is joining the information drive against a people’s initiative is, to me, qualified good news. It’s good news because it’s always a welcome development when the debate on Charter change involves a wider audience.

But it’s a little disappointing because the principal purpose of the CBCP seems to be to argue in favor of a constitutional convention after the 2010 presidential elections. This focus on timing and method, in my view, while not entirely useless, casts the debate in excessively narrow terms.

It remains unclear whether the debate will turn to substantive discussion of what, if any, provisions of the 1987 Constitution should be changed. The CBCP appears to agree that change is necessary, but only after 2010 and only through a constitutional convention. Its objection to a people’s initiative is that is being pursued by GMA and her supporters for their own selfish reasons.

Motive and method may not be entirely unproductive topics for argument. But neither serves the fundamental purpose of giving the people a better basis for informed decision on the need for, or lack of any urgency of, Charter change.

If there is a compelling case for a unicameral parliament, Charter change has to be the priority. If no such case has been made, Chacha should immediately be junked. Arguing over motivations can cut both ways. Debates over methodology can turn inconclusive. As it stands, we are getting nowhere. To some, I guess, that’s a perfectly acceptable position for this country. I don’t think so.