|
Apart from leading Catholic clerics, leftwing activists and the
political opposition, who else is objecting to the initiative to
amend or revise the 1987 Constitution?
Well, there are former President Fidel Ramos,
Catholic charismatic leader Mike Velarde—and, yes, even Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile.
Ironically, FVR, in his time, had similarly
proposed to rewrite the basic law of the land, with the enthusiastic
collaboration of then-Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., who now also
opposes Charter change.
The ex-president said the most recent
“Cha-cha” move, launched by President Arroyo’s kinsmen in the
House of Representatives, is ill-timed. The public sees it as an
attempt to extend the terms of incumbent officeholders—GMA,
included.
El Shaddai leader Velarde has vowed to lead
millions of his followers in street protests against “Cha-cha.”
It is a warning that has been pooh-poohed by the President’s
mouthpieces at the Palace, in typically impolitic fashion.
“Cha-cha” proponents had probably thought
they could count on Enrile to back them up. However, the newly
elected Senate chief—long identified as pro-administration—vowed
Wednesday to block moves to postpone the 2010 elections and lift the
term limits on Mrs. Arroyo and other elected officials.
In the past, Enrile had voiced his preference
for parliamentary government as well as a review of the Charter’s
economic provisions. On Wednesday, however, he was quoted saying by
the Times that, as Senate president, he must ensure the chamber
“remains united against dubious designs and schemes to amend the
Constitution to serve the interests of the incumbents and other
vested political interests.”
Enrile’s promise came as Sen. Manuel “Mar”
Roxas 2nd also on Wednesday filed a bill seeking to convene a
constitutional convention, or con-con, to amend the 1987
Constitution, with the election of delegates simultaneous with the
2010 general elections.
The “Cha-cha” proponents in the House of
Representatives have been pressing for a constituent assembly, or
con-ass, as the route toward revising the basic law of the land. In
their view, they would have the numbers to ram through the
amendments.
The “Cha-cha” advocates’ opinion has been
challenge not only by senators, but also by many constitutional
experts.
Economic reforms
In their bid to divert the debate away from the
tendentious issue of term limits, “Cha-cha” advocates have
sought to veer the discussion toward “economic reforms,” which
they insist would make the Philippines a more attractive investment
destination. However, it does not seem as though they have consulted
the putative beneficiaries of those reforms.
“There are a lot of things the Philippine
government can do now administratively and legislatively that would
send a signal that indeed they really want to open up the economy,
would welcome foreign investment and create the jobs that are
needed,” Rob Sears, executive director of the American Chamber of
Commerce of the Philippines (AmCham) was reported saying recently.
“Those things can be done irrespective of
whether you open the Constitution or not,” Sears reportedly added
during a business-media forum last week.
The same report had officials of the Joint
Foreign Chambers citing, for instance, the Foreign Investment
Negative List (FINL)—an offshoot of the Foreign Investments Act of
1991 (Republic Act 7042)—that is supposed to come under review
regularly. The FINL designates those business areas reserved for
Filipinos and those that foreigners can enter at limited equity. The
current FINL is set to lapse this month.
The executive vice president of the European
Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Henry Schumacher pointed out
that the last time the FINL was updated was during the time of
former President Joseph Estra-da. Among the changes adopted in the
last FINL review was a policy opening up the retail business to
foreigners.
Schumacher reportedly added that in light of
global economic uncertainty, foreign investors would prefer that the
Philippines make attempts at opening up its economy. And it does
need to rewrite its Constitution to do so.
Divisive proposal
The problem, as at least one commentator has
noted, is that the officials who are in a position to formulate and
speed up the adoption of legislative and administrative reforms in
order to generate more investments are inordinately busy doing the
“Cha-cha.”
Rather than concentrate on measures that would
help the country face global economic challenges, the
pro-administration congressmen and other “Cha-cha” advocates are
sowing the seeds of national polarization.
Faced with the worst global financial crisis
since the Great Depression of 1929, can the Philippines
afford—much less, withstand—the divisiveness that “Cha-cha”
is causing?
Enough of this “Cha-cha” idiocy.
dansoy26@yahoo.com
|
