The survey is king

I was at the first public hearing in Congress on constitutional amendments chaired by Rep. Victor Ortega of La Union. It was late afternoon and seeing empty seats around the table, I knew most of the resource persons had already left. Still, I caught the last bit, with two more resource persons to give their contributions, one from a farmers’ group and the other from KMU, the leftist labor group. A few seats from them was Dr. Mahar Mangahas of the notorious SWS survey group.

The resource person from the farmers’ group railed against the killing of peasant activists and the graft and corruption of the Arroyo government. The KMU, while more sedate, came around to talk about the same thing — they were against Charter change because they were against the Arroyo government. From that tail-end of a discussion that had been going on all day, it was clear to me that it was not a hearing on Charter change but a platform on which different groups could express their grievances against the world and the government in power. If people care to remember these were the same dissatisfied groups that complained against Garcia, Macapagal, Marcos, Aquino, Ramos, and Estrada governments or even further back also against Quezon, Quirino with the exception of Magsaysay. But that is another story. The Marxists could lump these groups and their small causes into one big cause — the class struggle.

This was not a discussion on Charter change. From my point of view, the disadvantaged groups were giving the very reasons why we should have Charter change. The system that was not working for them. I am not saying that Charter change will solve all problems of governance but there is a greater fighting chance for reform if we changed the structure of governance. Their presentations was about their lives under the presidential system.

So as I sat there listening to their tirades, I realized that something had gone completely wrong about the national conversation on Charter change. It has now come around to this: We should not have Charter change because many are against the Arroyo government.

* * *

Charter change had become a bad word and made the catch-all term for refusing real change which would be structural. How did it come to this? The only answer I can think of us is there must have been a wide ranging stratagem able to put together diverse multiplier groups invested with traditional authority — religious, some bishops, priests and nuns, holier than saints civic groups like the Black and White movement, military stray groups and top businesses.

It is well known that the President as Chief Executive and Commander of the Armed Forces, in the presidential system as handed down to us by our colonizers, is exceptionally powerful. If the political structure is not changed before then, the 2010 elections will be merely continuing with the same flaw of the system — an all powerful President who is the democratic reincarnation of the Spanish and American governor generals. If we do not have Charter change before 2010 we can look forward to even more powerful and wealthier presidents not different from electing a king or a queen.

* * *

I looked forlornly at the farmers and laborers. They would not have understood if I were to tell them they were not only victims under the present presidential system, they were also victims of a campaign to perpetuate the system.

My attention then became riveted on the man who, among others, made possible this delusion. It was no less than Mr. Survey himself, Dr. Mahar Mangahas. His surveys especially the latest one prepared the groundwork for muddling Charter change. He simply announced survey results (which may have made him a very rich man indeed) that Filipinos are against Charter change. At the latest count we were told that 64 percent of Filipinos oppose amendments of the Constitution. The catch is that was not the whole question. It was the other half which was deadly and for which Mr. Mangahas will have to answer. The offending part of the survey question: that could lead to the extension of terms of incumbent government officials. The complete question then that was asked by the survey was: Do you oppose amendments to the Constitution if will lead to the extension of terms of incumbent government officials. It was the leading question that effectively destroyed any intelligent national conversation on Charter change.

Not surprisingly the results showed that “opposition to term extension was the predominant sentiment of Filipinos in all areas and socio-economic classes.

According to news report “the highest percentage of opposition to term extension — 78 percent — was recorded in Metro Manila. The percentage of opposition was 70 percent in the Visayas, 62 percent in the rest of Luzon, and 54 percent in Mindanao. Further, the survey showed that “most wish to maintain, many wish to shorten, and a very few wish to extend the present allowable terms of office of the President, Vice President, senators, and congressional representatives.” The survey was conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4 by the Social Weather Stations (SWS).

* * *

This was not a survey on Charter change nor one that would have helped Filipinos engage in an intelligent discussion. Neither did it help Filipinos understand what Charter change is all about. With a single stroke the pollster in tandem with critics of Charter change simply connected Charter change with term extension. And it was effective.

It may be true that “Filipinos have always been opposed to any constitutional change that would extend the President’s stay in office” but it is equally true that Filipinos would not have been opposed to constitutional change if it did not extend the President’s or any other elected official’s term of office.

* * *

To me, the survey is the malefactor that has muddled up Charter change by confusing it with the extension of terms. It smacks of a purposeful design that has shut the door to substantial political change in the Philippines to diminish the hold of the oligarchy on the Filipino nation.

I would not hold my breath either for those who say we should have a constitutional convention instead and only after 2010.

More credible and certainly more honest is Tawi-tawi Rep. Nur Jaafar who said “that the arguments raised against amending the Constitution were the same statements issued by anti-Charter change groups since 1992 (I would add far longer than that) claiming that the time is not ripe to amend the Constitution.

“There is no reason to fear constitutional change by claiming that now is not the right time. When then is the right time, if I may ask?” Jaafar asks. If we go along with the keepers of the status quo, the answer is never and I am willing to put a wager against those who think it would happen after 2010.