Cha-cha, one more time

On my office bookshelf are drafts of previous efforts to amend the 1987 Constitution. During the administration of Rodrigo Duterte, who campaigned for the presidency on a platform of federalism – a shift that requires a total rewrite of the Charter – there were two drafts.

One was drawn up by a consultative committee that conducted discussions on the sweeping reforms that would be presented to the people for approval in a plebiscite.

Aside from the shift to federalism, among its most notable provisions was the regulation of political dynasty building as a precondition to the easing of term limits.

Cynics warned that the curbs on dynasty building would doom that Charter change initiative. And true enough, not even the relaxation of term limits could make the draft Charter palatable to the House of Representatives, which is packed with political dynasts. By most accounts, the draft Charter went directly to the HOR wastebasket, unread.

The HOR, at the time led by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, promptly produced its own draft Charter, which notably omitted any mention of dynasty regulation. This version died a natural death.

* * *

Coming on the heels of the 1986 people power revolt against authoritarian rule, the theme of the so-called Freedom Constitution of 1987 can be summed up as “never again” – designed to prevent a repeat of the abuses of power during the 20 years under the first Ferdinand Marcos and wife Imelda.

To prevent the perpetuation of anyone in power, as the conjugal dictatorship was believed to have tried, the new Constitution gave the president a single fixed term of six years. Term limits were also set for other officials.

The framers, however, left the task of defining and prohibiting political dynasties to the wrong body. Members of Congress can’t be expected to provide the weapon for their own self-destruction.

* * *

Fidel Ramos and GMA launched Charter change initiatives. Both were doomed by perceptions that they simply wanted to lift term limits so they could stay longer in power. GMA’s legal counsel and defense chief at the time, Avelino Cruz, described her disorganized Cha-cha signature drive as a “legally harebrained idea.”

Duterte’s Cha-cha was shot down by his socioeconomic planning secretary, Ernesto Pernia, who said the proposed shift to federalism would be too costly for the country. The rest of the Duterte economic team later echoed Pernia’s warning – and this was before the COVID-19 response buried the country in multitrillion-peso debt.

To avoid perceptions that a sitting president simply wants to stay in power forever, Camarines Sur Rep. LRay Villafuerte says the best time for Cha-cha is in the first half of a presidency.

Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, who chairs the HOR’s committee on constitutional amendments, said Chacha would be limited to restrictive economic provisions that turn off investors.

President Marcos, responding to media questions, has said Cha-cha is not his priority. If the objective is to make the country more attractive to foreign direct investments (FDI), he said there are other ways of achieving this without tinkering with the Constitution.

Last year alone, Congress passed the Foreign Investment Act, which further liberalized rules on FDI; amendments to the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000, which lifted the 80 percent foreign equity limit on foreign retailers, and amendments to the Public Service Act that effectively lifted foreign equity restrictions on public utilities.

* * * BBM’s message on his priorities, however, was apparently lost on his allies in the HOR panel, which has approved Cha-cha by constitutional convention or con-con, and (no surprise here) not just limited to economic provisions.

Was BBM’s pronouncement just part of a script? At the Senate, administration ally Robinhood Padilla has threatened to resign rather than set aside Cha-cha. Can someone please call his bluff?

Senator Robinhood heads the upper chamber’s committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes. He has requested the use of his full first name, I guess to differentiate from his show biz persona, and he seems bent on showing that he’s taking his Senate committee role seriously. So there’s no stopping him from proceeding with his Cha-cha effort.

Initiating Cha-cha is in fact up to Congress, requiring no approval from the president of the republic. But presidential support is critical in selling to the public any amendment or total rewrite of the Constitution.

Even if the effort gets presidential support, there are hurdles along the way that can doom the initiative. Any amendment or overhaul will likely face legal challenges before the Supreme Court. The final product needs ratification in a national referendum.

The entire process could take years, but this is how it should be in any effort to change the fundamental law of the land.

* * *

Constitutions must be dynamic, but amendments cannot be made whimsically. In this land where politics and governance are anchored on self-interest, it is only right that Cha-cha is designed to be complicated.

The Charter was passed before the age of cell phones, tablet computers, social media, Netflix, livestreaming, cryptocurrency and aerial drones.

It does have restrictive economic provisions, but Congress has already bypassed even restrictions on foreign ownership in key economic sectors, through laws that I have cited.

The country can use political reforms, starting with curbs on dynasty building. The party-list system is a failed experiment. And if you think about it, three years is truly short for the term of local executives; they spend half the time preparing for reelection, or grooming relatives to replace them.

But Cha-cha has always suffered from the baggage of proponents working mainly to serve their personal and family interests.

Yesterday a warning was issued about the con-con being packed with political proxies. Preventing this from happening isn’t as simple as it seems, considering the influence of politicians in this country.

Serving those personal and partisan interests could distract the country from the many pressing issues requiring full focus and efficient handling. These include runaway inflation, crises in education and public health, agriculture and food security issues, endemic corruption, the weakness of the rule of law, climate change risks and national security challenges. These are on top of headwinds from external factors such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Perhaps BBM should send a stronger, unequivocal message to his congressional allies about his priorities, and the need to focus on more urgent concerns.