What’s really in it for them and for us in Cha Cha?

Given the right information on which to make a decision, I trust in the wisdom and judgment of the Filipino voter. The problem is that the Filipino voter is stymied by a severe information deficiency and cannot make the right decisions. Then of course, regardless of the outcome of the people’s will, there is always the traditional politicians waiting at the side to waylay the results.

Even David Copperfield’s magic pales in comparison to the sleight of hand executed by politicians desperately seeking Cha Cha (Charter Change). Maybe we ought to get down to the root of it all - why they want Cha Cha so badly and why the rest of Filipinos don’t.

Historical necessity

Ask yourself: Why are the congressmen the biggest promoters of Cha Cha? Now think about these:

1. In the presidential elections of 1992 and 1998, Congress leaders were the biggest losers. In those two presidential elections, Speakers Ramon Mitra and Joe de Venecia were backed by very powerful party machineries. They both had the money, organization and the support of most of the congressmen and local officials. But still, they lost, and lost big time.

2. In the senatorial elections of 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2004, most of the congressmen who ran, lost.

3. Since the time of the Aquino administration, Congress has consistently rated very poorly in surveys of public institutions. Consistent with this, congressmen also lost in national elections.

4. Congressmen have also chalked up the most embarrassing criminal records, from murder to rape all the way to gun running. The least popular public official even managed to get into the "Philippines’ Most Wanted" list.

Thus, it has become a matter of survival for House Speaker Joe de Venecia (JDV) and his ilk to want to change the Constitution in order to pre-empt the inevitable trend that foretells their doom.

The core issue

Amid all the brouhaha promising reform and progress, the Cha Cha is really all about a shift to the parliamentary system. That is the bottom line for JDV and his congress gang. For JDV, the shift to a parliamentary form of government fulfills his dream to finally become the head of state.

For the rest of the congressmen, the shift to a parliamentary form of government bestows on them:

1. Both the executive and legislative branches of government.

2. They will not only have their pork barrels but they will also be running all the government departments.

So, the very people who we will not trust to run the executive branch of government will now become even more powerful by having both the executive and legislative branches. If they are not content with their pork barrel, all they have to do is make a new law the same way that they changed the House rules to pave the way for their version of Con Ass (Constituent Assembly without the Senate).

Do you see reform or salvation in that?

What they don’t like in the 1987 Constitution

Before you buy all the crap that they are peddling about the 1987 Constitution being the boil on the heel of progress, look deeper into the real reasons why they want to junk the 1987 Constitution. They are pulling your leg when they say that we are not moving ahead economically because of "archaic provisions" of the 1987 Constitution.

What they are after really is to remove the provisions of the 1987 Constitution that sets:

1. Term limits – the three terms for congressmen and local officials and two terms for senators and one for president.

2. The reduced term period from four years for congressmen and local officials in the 1935 Constitution to three years under the 1987 Constitution.

3. The anti-dynasty provision which they never allowed to take effect in the first place by not enacting the enabling law.

Compare the makers of the 1987 Constitution vs. those who now want to change it

Jesus Christ cautioned us against false prophets. "By their fruits you shall know them," He said. Compare the men and women who drafted the 1987 Constitution with those who so desperately now want to change it.

Among those who made the 1987 Constitution were: Adolf Azcuna, Flery Ruth Romero, Christian Monsod, Wilfrido Villacorta, Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo, Napoleon Rama, Chito Gascon, Rene Sarmiento, Cecilia Munoz-Palma, Ambrosio Padilla, Jose Calderon, Fely Aquino, Teodoro Bacani, Joaquin Bernas, Flor Braid, Lorenzo Sumulong, Christine Tan, Jose B. Laurel, Vic Foz, Peps Bengson, Bernie Villegas, Roberto Concepcion, Roberto Romulo and Ma. Teresa Nieva.

Now try to recall the people who tried to ram Con Ass down your throat last December 7, Black Thursday, and ask yourself:

1. Who can I trust – the 1987 batch or these Con Ass promoters?

2. Who represents the status quo that accounts for the big wealth gap in our country?

3. Who has the better track record?

4. Who are known to be clean, honest, with a heart for public welfare?

The framers of the 1987 Constitution were inspired by the People Power event that restored democracy. Their mandate was to provide the framework for institutionalizing democratic reform - thus the attempt to set term limits, enshrine the concept of People Power as a healthy safeguard for democracy and calling for an end to political dynasties. Their agenda was democracy.

Past vs. future

The peddlers of Cha Cha claim that the changes that they will make are the key to a better future for the Filipino. The truth is they fear the future as the present political trends would strongly indicate. Thus, before they totally lose the game, they are now attempting to change the rules of the game in order to cement their hold on power.

Give these people more power than they already have and we doom our country to be trapped in the past. We will be forever chained to the structures that allow less than 3% of Filipinos to control over 85% of the wealth.

We must not accept the sales pitch of those who want Cha Cha in order to preserve their wealth and power. Their sales pitch rings of the same tone as that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

If we must, then let’s improve the present Constitution by adopting the US method - by specific amendments. We should not agree to open it to a major overhaul where the selfish interests of a few are served and the rest of us end up on the short end of the deal.

You may email William M. Esposo at: [email protected]