Charter Change
August 5th, 2005 at 7:18 am (General, National Politics)
Con-Ass vs Con-Con
Most Congressmen are raring for the House of Representatives to convene as the Constitutional Assembly and draft the new Constitution themselves. And of course, most Senators are against this. Do we even need to ask why??? President Arroyo and her “mentor” former Pres. Ramos are proposing a Constituent Assembly as well. Because, they contend, it is the easiest, fuss-free way to go about with the Charter Change. But, fast and easy isn’t neccessarily best, right? Although we are now undeniably in a political crisis (and consequently, an economic crisis, as well), a fast and easy Constitutional Change is not the only way to remedy our political ailments. For one, there is something very dubious about elected congressmen amending the constitution. Unfortunately, they will most likely churn out a constitution that will serve their own interests. What will stop them from lifting the limit to serving as a “public servant”? And while the Constitutional Assembly grandstand and debate on the consitutional amendments, who then will take care of legislation? Is our country going to stand still while they debate? And I fear, despite their claims, that it will be a very looong debate.
On the other hand, Pres. Arroyo and former Pres. Ramos say, electing and assembling a Constitutional Convention would take too much time, money and effort. Somebody please tell me what is so wrong about that? If there is something we should spend time, money and effort on, it is our political system. If it is indeed what is hindering our country’s growth and progress, then why are they so hesitant to spend on it. If we really want what is best for our country and our countrymen, then let us do it the right way, and not just the easy and fast way.
Parliamentary System
I am a wary of the parliamentary system simply because we will have a leader who is elected by his own peers in the legislative body. The reason why the executive and legislative branches are separated is mainly for checks and balance. A parliamentary system, however, will tip this balance towards one specific direction, that of the interests of the political party (if you can even call them that) with the most money and strongest machinery.
Some contend that, through a parliamentary system, it would be easier to change the head of the nation. However, it only works if the majority votes to do so. However, as is happening now with the impeachment charges, it is evident that it is not that easy to gather a majority to oust a sitting head of nation.
Moreover, I do not get the point of having a ceremonial president. I see it as a white elephant, a pointless use of government resources. What do we one one for anyway?
Unicameralism vs. Bicameralism
The point of having a bicameral legislative body is to again for checks and balance. Legislation, I believe is what makes or breaks a country. It is the very core of the nation. It is the legislative body that defines our indentity as a country. Through a bicameral system, legislation is checked and passed by two independent bodies. Through this system, legislation from each legislative body is checked by the other. Unicameralism will eliminate this very important mechanism.
Moreover, it is important to note that there is great value in having a legislative body that is composed of representatives proportional to the scale of their constituency (House of Representatives) and another one that is composed of representatives that represent a region (a revised Senate with a representative from each region). A bicameral system allows for a more equal representation of the constituency.
Unicameralism may also eliminate representation for the underepresented and will revert back to being the “old boys’ club” it once was. Although the party-list system is flawed, the spirit it was intended for should be maintained and improved.
Federalism
Federalism, perhaps, is the only proposal that makes sense to me. It makes sense simply because I know, have seen and felt how underdeveloped some parts of the country are despite their contributions to the national treasury. Federalism not only decentralizes power, it, more importantly, decentralizes development. Through decentralization a number of problems will be solved.
Not only will development be easier for areas outside or far from Metro Manila, it also allow each part of the country to set their priorities based on their capabilities and needs. Each region would be able to legislate and execute based on their own resources. The problem of each region will be dealt with locally, and most likely, with greater speed.
Another important but, underemphasized, result of federalism would be the decongestion of Metro Manila. The very reason why Metro Manila is congested, with more than enough “informal settlers”, is because everything is in the metro. Government offices, industries and businesses are within the Metro. Thus, people outside the Metro are forced to migrate towards the metro if they wish to advance their career. A good number also move to the metro because of education. With federalism, development in industries, business and even in the academe will be spread more evenly across the archipelago.
With the potential for local development and industrialization that federalism provides, surely, the entire Philippines will progress.
Credits to Manuel Quezon III and PCIJ for information on the proposed Charter Change.
Related Posts:- Charter Change and Federalism Top Priorities?
- Charter Change Revived
- People’s Initiative?
- Sovereign Philippines
- Change
Ping Lacson said,
September 6, 2006 at 10:14 pm
that charter change must not be adopted, one reason is that it gives an unsured luck. It may lead us more poverty
jirap mag englkish
ah ewamn
papahuli ko at babarilin ang nag babaka at sumusuporta sa CHACHA
mga siraulo manloloko hehehehe
pede nilang tanggalin ang eleksyon para sila na lang ang mamuno diba???
yung mga ipababago nila ay di digurado
at yun ang kakulangan nila.
did you get my point
JDEspaldon said,
September 7, 2006 at 9:50 pm
If a parliamentary form of government is too good for any country that it is a guarantee to solve all the national problems and ailments, then why is it that the only superpower country on this planet is under a presidential form of government?
Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe are under a parliamentary form of government or a semblance of that kind of government. Need I say more that their governments are in a mess.
I do not know of any political treatise that shifting from presidential to parliamentary form of government is a sure-fire solution for all political, economic and social problems.
Sigaw ba talaga ng bayan ang Cha-cha o Singaw ng bayan.
aYsY said,
September 17, 2006 at 9:30 pm
well, i’m studying this issue for quite so long now and the only thing i have in my mind is the word “unity”. we must admit that our country is now facing a tremendous dillema politically and economically speaking and i think the best thing that all of us must do is to work hand in hand most especially to those people working inside the government, this is not the right time to look for someone to blame instead,they must all work.after all if they are really longing for the public welfare they must set aside their political desires. tis may sound so insane but there will be nothing wrong if all of us will gie it a try..
JDEspaldon said,
September 18, 2006 at 1:44 am
Unity can be achieved if we have a common goal and we have the same motivation not because we have a change in government from presidential to parliament.
I even doubt whether we can have unity under a Prime Minister who was elected by members of the Parliament and not direct by the people. If the President who were directly elected by the people could be opposed and deposed notwithstanding obtaining a very popular vote (re: Erap), how much more a Prime Minister who owed no debt to the people and might even be very unpopular to the public but very “likeable” to members of the Parliament? Does it mean we would have a yearly election after a no-confidence vote? Or God forbid, a monthly election?
The Constitution cannot simply be amended just because we want to experiment with a form of government. How about if the trial fails, do we have to change again the provisions of the Constitution back to presidential form? What a waste of time, money and efforts. Surely, we would look like idiots to other countries.
I am not against Charter Change but I am against a simplistic reasoning that we are going to solve all our problems if we shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government. There is just no truth to it. It is just pure baloney! Give me a valid reason for doing the change and perhaps I will be convinced. Not the crap that all parliamentary forms of governments are rich governments. Again, another big lie.
Alyssa Al Kholifi said,
September 20, 2006 at 2:47 am
Charter Change means making changes in the 1987 Constitution according to Article XII. Amendments or Revisions. Why do we want and need to amend and revise the 1987 Constitution? In order to remove certain of its defects and weaknesses, so we can empower our people and strengthen our political and social institutions, and thus bring about what we sadly lack as a nation—- “GOOD GOVERNANCE!!!”
JDEspaldon said,
September 20, 2006 at 9:18 pm
You are near in convincing me. Now I understand why Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is lousy in “governance” because she is serving under a presidential form of government. So JDV, if he happens to become the prime minister after the charter change, will deliver an exemplary “good governance” because by then our government will be a parliamentary form of government. Somehow the much-maligned Congress will be instantly filled with members of unassailable character just because we are going to call it a Parliament.
With this kind of syllogism, I can almost sing: “God bless the Philippines”. Better yet, “God save the Philippines”.
STUPID_GIRL2006 said,
September 26, 2006 at 12:22 am
…….CHARTER CHANGE IS QUIET NOT THE SOLUTION OF OUR POLITICAL CRISIS AND ECONOMIC CRISIS…….EVEN THOUGH CHACHA WILL BE AMENDED IF CORRUPT OFFICIALS IS ALWAYS THERE….IT IS USELESS….
……SO I PREFER NO TO CHACHA………OFFICIALS MUST CHANGE THEIRSELVES NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS FOR JUST GIVING THEM THE CHANCE TO LONGED THEIR TERMS……
add_fs student said,
September 26, 2006 at 6:46 pm
we do not need change in our charter….what we need is a chane in the heart
of our leader.. because no matter how many times we change our political system and our political leader if the leader still have the wrong intention,, well nothing will happen…
because what our country need today is aleader which is very much didecated to serve the nation!!!!!
we must all wake up about this fact…
ohyah said,
July 15, 2007 at 1:54 am
• cha cha or not? before we answer that do you guys remember what happened during the marcos era? how about the martial law? scary huh? just a refresher…
marcos declared martial law under the veil of legality. his gov’t was called constitutional authoritarianism..at least that was his plan.. it was dictatorship masked by legality..nobody saw it coming..very clever..
as we all know..there was a 1973 constitution..by marcos..wherein the philippines became a “modified parliamentary” form of gov’t.
we are aware that in a presidential form of gov’t there exist the 3 branches, the executive(implemetation of laws), legislative(law-making body), and judiciary(arbiter and interpreter of laws)…there is the separation of powers for the purpose of checks and balances, meaning no one branch is above the others, and no concentration of powers.
in a parliamentary form of gov’t there is the president and the prime minister. the president, as we know is in charge of the executive branch, while the prime minister heads the legislative branch.
can you imagine if one man managed to be president and at the prime minister at the same time? if one person heads the legislative and at the same time the executive he would be too powerful..way too powerful. that is exactly what happened during the marcos regime. marcos headed both branches..and there were amendments in the 1973 consti that justified political abuses. and the judiciary’s power was restricted, and therefore were not able to anything.
and it was all because of a charter change…
given the present situation, can we trust these people who are in power not to abuse it in any way?
can we blame ourselves for being too skeptical about change? it is natural to be resistant to change…and for a good reason.
there are rumors that the proposed charter change is the president’s scheme to extend her term and stay in power..more like a last gasp of breath in a political deathbed…
the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no man is above the law. powers, rights and privileges are granted by the constitution and cannot be changed, except through charter change..where these powers, rights and priveleges can be given or taken away…
think about it…are we going to let history repeat itself?
desty said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:59 am
i wouyld want to have univcameral legislature…although checks and balance will be lacking the other branches can still check the legis;ative branch…
gfilbert pendre said,
January 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I DONT LIKE CHA-CHA OR CON-ASS BECAUSE AS A YOUTH WE WILL OUR RIGHT TO VOTE
gilbert said,
January 28, 2008 at 5:15 pm
No to CHACHA
that not the
SOLOTION
in our problem
in this NATION.
They just showing that
they are
self-centered people.
they want to have more
POWER
than to help
people.
I
danica said,
April 24, 2008 at 12:38 am
no to cha-cha,the only wanting i know to solve our problim that we r facing today is unite the people it is the onlu one thing i know.and us one of a concern citizen in our country my contribution to solve this problim is to shared the goodness of our heart it will ends up with winning for i belive that life is like an echo it bounce back what u have give and what u hve done to others,.