Who's afraid of Charter change?

One of the jurors has admitted blocking Dolphy’s nomination in 2009 for National Artist. He had two beefs. Supposedly the Comedy King trivialized gays in cinema, and romanticized poverty in television.

Doubtless, as many would share as would shun that critique. Dolphy (Rodolfo Vera Quizon) played many comic roles in his 65 years in showbiz. He first appeared as a gay in Jack and Jill in 1954. Other gay portrayals followed: Susanang Daldal (1962), Pepe en Pilar (1966), Facifica Falayfay (1969), Kangkarot (1969), Karioka Etchos de America (1971), Fefita Fofonggay viuda de Falayfay (1973), Sarhento Fofonggay (1974), Jack n’ Jill of the Third Kind (1978), Ang Tatay Kong Nanay (1978), and Darna, Kuno? (1979). They did poke fun at gayness, but more so at ordinary scenes of Filipino-ness.

As well, some art critics view differently Dolphy’s careworn-breadwinner characters in the TV series John en Marsha and Home Along da Riles. Weaving themes of episodes were the virtues of industry, perseverance, patience, filial piety and, most of all, family mettle despite adversity.

Not only in comedy did Dolphy make the Filipino shine. He won the FAMAS Best Actor trophy for dual roles as good and evil in the 1977 fantasy, Omeng Satanasia. He was once Metro Manila Film Festival Best Supporting Actor in the 2010 bio-drama, Rosario. He and two sons are the only ones ever to win jointly both Best Actor and Best Actress awards of the Brussels Film Festival for the 2001 war drama, Markova: Comfort Gay.

Four generations of Filipinos enjoyed Dolphy’s movies and TV shows. Even without the National Artist medal, he is a hero. When the TV flashed the news Tuesday night that Dolphy had passed away at 83, I shed a tear. For I remembered the many times he had made me laugh out loud.

* * *

Three attempts under three Presidents to correct certain parts of the Constitution have failed. Supposedly because “traditional politicians” led the moves, then the motives were sinister. It’s as if the non-political opposers had no hidden economic, religious or cultural agenda.

Truth to tell, pro-Charter change politicians are open about their intentions. They know that lying could lead to ridicule — and defeat — in the next election. It’s the antis who never spell out their true views, say, about ownership of utilities and schools remaining anti-foreigner, and religious sects tax-free. Unelected and probably unelectable, they feel no compulsion to answer for anything to anyone.

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. states his only purpose for Charter change. Nothing more, he swears, than to expunge the provisions that dampen foreign investments.

For economic bloom in a globalized world, borders must be opened to capital from overseas. Yet the Constitution is so delimiting. Six provisos bar foreigners from owning land, schools or mass media; more than 30 percent of advertising agencies, and 40 percent of public utilities or mineral exploration. Three more forbid them from operating mines, engaging in services, and practicing professions. Yet Filipinos do not have enough cash to put up the required partial or total equity. So since 60 percent of zero equals zero, they play dummy for, if not outright marrying, foreigners.

Belmonte’s solution to that is the simple addition of the phrase, “Unless otherwise provided by law....” All such limits to foreign capital will thus be subject to congressional action, based on the exigencies of the times. The amending can be done in a few weeks well before the 2013 elections. In Constituent Assembly the Senate and House of Representatives will meet jointly but vote separately.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile shares Belmonte’s Charter-change objective. He proposes two other amendments, though. One is to delete the constraint of giving each year to education the biggest share of the national budget. This would allow the country to prioritize defense (or other concerns) once in a while. The other is to appoint instead of elect barangay and youth councils. This would lessen election spending and divisive campaigns.

There are those who would argue that such amendments could lead to tampering with other constitutional provisions. Like, putting defense over education might touch on the sections that renounce war and prohibit nuclear armament. Or, discussing elections might give way to prolonging of congressional terms and lifting of limits.

But those are mere ifs. Enrile can be asked perhaps to swear to avoid straying into such fields. If he refuses, there would at least still be national debates. Free flow of ideas is what the country needs. Such democratic exercise is better anytime than the unelected and unelectable sneering that ordinary Filipinos are too ignorant to review their Constitution.

* * *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected]