Who would have thought that the term ‘change’ could undermine streamlining the bureaucratic process by growing the political division and recurring issues in Philippine politics? With the effects of global grievances, will Charter Change be coming?
Charter Change or ChaCha refers to the constitutional reforms and revisions of amendments in the country’s constitution. In the Philippines, the proposed amendment and revisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s current administration has been one of the most awaited and relevant news for the Filipinos and a jackpot prize for the government leaders advocating for it. Despite various concerns and clamor raised by the stakeholders, oppositions, and critics of the government, the planned Charter Change was already drafted and well-planned as aimed to have a quick response to Presidential authoritarian rule and various political factors in the administration introducing and advocating for changes in the constitutions for economic, social, political and structural reforms.
The long journey of Chacha started with its main agenda on economic reform amending the 1987 Philippine Constitution to undergo reforms through opening more sectors to foreign investments including restriction on foreign ownership. Its roadmap started with the plan and straight in landing out for charter change and was crafted emerging from decades-long Martial Law under the dictator former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. administration to duck the limits of his term as the President and drafted by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Looking back on the past administration, there were past charter change attempts that failed enough due to the intrinsic merit brought by the Marcos Sr. administration and people’s resistance. Through the legislative process involving various factors in the bills and resolutions in the legislature, it remains to reconvene and inconsiderable due to the constitutional convention method as a separate entity or body in the constitution. The destination of this amendment will end with the ratification or the approval confirmation of the amendment which garnered the support of the leadership of both Congress and the House despite the threat of political disunity, dissatisfaction, and public division. The encumbrance of the initiative through the opposing amendment of some of the members of the senate remained referendum following its interpretative roadblocks as various stakeholders, civil society groups, and political parties engaged in some conflicting provisions impeding and blocking the process of charter change to protect and preserve the Philippine democracy. As evidenced by the previous attempts proposed by the Senate and members of the House allied with the ruling party, the plan to remain in power through the Charter Change and adopting the parliamentary government will probably undermine the democracy in the Philippines which could result in a vast democratic erosion.
The persistent move to amend the ChaCha marked its first destination of the constitutional convention in perpetuating political power. The charter journey will be an impractical and treacherous approach and attempt at the various agendas of politicians, political power manipulation, and undemocratic constitutional reform.
With the senate leadership’s support for the “economic ChaCha” and the approval of President Marcos, the disruption spurred progress exacerbated political remonstrance and ignited destabilization will be at the line in the rising global tension and regional instability in the country’s underdevelopment and economic policies. This manifestation indicates the pathway associated with the undemocratic process facing Chacha as a means of undemocratic change.
The proposed ChaCha faces the slope of an absence of public consensus and consultation with often a lack of transparency in deciding on closed doors by the political elites giving unjust and ungenuine democratic rights in terms of active citizen participation and consultation with the constitutional reform. This manifestation deprived an opportunity to voice the concerns of the Filipino people in abusing democratic principles by silencing the voices of dissent and critics. The House of Representatives keeping track of the progress to pass the resolution for the Constitutional Convention as soon as the filing of 11 bills and resolutions about the charter change in July last year convenes the forces to push forward for the urgency push of Charter Change in Congress delineate its rushed and hasty decision-making it undemocratic for the lack of adequate deliberation and scrutiny in prioritizing the risks and consequences in the governance and democracy of the Philippines as pluralistic society resulting to the lack of broad consensus in the processes of consensus-building leading to polarization and social unrest.
Concealing the restrictive economic provision as the stoplight in the road, the constitutional amendment is driven by the main partisan agenda, narrow political and self-interests, partisan agendas, opportunists, and reviled members of the Senate to broaden their coalition in winning over the people’s initiative delineates the politicization by prioritizing the interests of the political factions, elites, and jeopardize the entrenchment of authoritarianism or oligarchy as ally of the big businessmen and investors in controlling the democratic principles within the Philippine economy.
More than the procedural hurdles, the people’s initiatives might face credibility problems and manipulation of information and dissemination of propaganda by hijacking the people’s power through political motives and distortion public discourse by swaying the public opinion in favor of proposed amendments by incentives or money. This impartial action and controversy distinctly undermines democratic accountability and hinders genuine democratic rights, deliberation, and participation. Various constitutional bodies have an essential role in upholding the rules of law and ensuring the prevention of abuse of power by the political elites and authoritarian leaders which is a testament to preventing weak oversight mechanisms, jeopardizing institutional integrity, the politicization of judicial, and limited civic engagement and participation.
The slippery slope road of the Charter Change continues to haunt the footprints of the administration in carrying inherent risks that threaten the democracy’s foundation of the Philippines. The Philippines still thriving for active democratic principles and civic participation but the charter change that serves as the bridge and reason of the political divide undermines the democratic principle of people’s sovereignty. From the eroding of institutional integrity, the diminished civic participation, manipulation, and scrutinized changes in the constitution will constantly adhere to weakening the democratic fabric of the society leading to the the potential damage to democracy. The collective power of Filipinos must win over the partisan interest to protect the democratic fuel that remains in this journey.
With the piling up of issues and stagnation at the pivotal juncture of the amendment to the constitutional change, where are we now? The apparent silence and inconsistent momentum of Charter Change is a complete reminder that it might be reassessment, strategizing, and flaming well the conversation as the issue will remain steadfast and people will continuously predict the unwavering dedication and commitment for the slow progress and sudden dwindling of Charter Change.
*Photo by Ralph Carpio, “[OPINION] Here we go again with charter change, Rappler.
Hi JM!
This op-ed provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities and challenges surrounding the proposed Charter Change (ChaCha) in the Philippines. I like how you’re able to effectively highlight the historical context, political motivations, and potential consequences of the constitutional amendments, with the risks to democratic principles and civic participation. It is thorough, a detailed narrative that connects past attempts at ChaCha with the current political climate under President Marcos Jr.’s administration. Your stance is clear, with a strong emphasis on the undemocratic nature of the proposed changes and their potential to entrench political power.
While this is a little convoluted, sometimes drifts into repetition, reiterated points–with long, complex sentences that can be difficult to follow, it’s a good read. Jargons are well-used, however this may challenge some of the public’s understanding.
Overall, this will be very helpful for readers who aren’t familiar with the proposed ChaCha in the Philippines. It will help the public understand the broader implications and risks to democratic principles and civic participation. What a great read. I’m impressed!
Hello, John Mark!
I agree with Julianna that you could have used shorter sentences and simpler words in the interest of readability. However, I still think that this is a well-written article because you presented well-rounded arguments which are sufficiently supported with evidence. Your article proves helpful for foreign students who are not well-versed in Philippine politics to understand the current threat faced by our Constitution and our democracy. Your article states that the ongoing process of Charter Change in the Philippines is undemocratic because most of the decision-making happens behind closed doors and that the people’s initiatives and referendum forwarded by the Congress may be manipulated in favor of the Charter Change through biased information campaigns. I agree that deciding on matters as critical as constitutional reform should entail stricter guidelines in terms of transparency and accountability. The lawmakers must ensure that there is genuine citizen participation throughout the process. After all, the Constitution is the law that governs all the citizens of a State. Hence, all the citizens concerned should be well-represented in the process of constitutional amendment. Constitutional Change is indeed a slippery slope. If the process of Charter Change is already undemocratic, how can we ensure that the implementation of the amendments would maintain the ideal standards of democracy?
Thanks for this piece, John Mark. Well done.