Ends of the same pole

Furious stakeholders of the status quo may have overlooked the fact that members of both the House and the Senate are for Charter change, if for different reasons. They are ends of the same pole even if made to look like opposites.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. (PDP-Laban) leads by proposing Charter change to give greater autonomy to local authorities. At the top of his drive for greater autonomy is the desire by local authorities for a bigger share of the IRA (internal revenue allotment). It is hoped that in time the greater autonomy to evolve into a federalist structure for the Philippines.

 In the House, the proposal on the table is for Charter change that would liberalize our investment laws to allow the foreign ownership of land. This is seen as necessary if we are to compete for investments with other countries in the region most already attuned to do this.

* * *

Both these positions, one in the House and the other in the Senate, have supporters among more intelligent citizens. Greater autonomy has the backing of local authorities that constitute the bulk of citizenry. Foreign chambers of commerce have expressed support to lifting constitutional restrictions on foreign investors to own or acquire long leases to land. It is a country up in arms (perhaps not yet physically) wanting to decide their destiny. Why is it being frustrated?

Despite the support to these initiatives, a climate of opinion has been created with the help of media tools and presidential aspirants to stop any debate. The play of the game is to machinate public hatred of the Arroyo government and its allies in Congress even before the people decide in a plebiscite.

Having created this climate of opinion against the Arroyo government, the public mind is malleable to “the danger that the amendments might be used for extending the term of the president.” The key to the strategy is to link the hate Arroyo campaign and charter change in the public mind.

This is obvious through surveys that asked “Are you in favor of Charter change if it would extend the term of the President and other government officials?” It is the dead give-away of the plot hatched a long time ago that began with the Garci tapes. Foreign operators with the cooperation of local partners are behind the machinations.

 The objective is to kill two birds with one stone — remove President Arroyo and stop Charter change.

 It is my opinion that the bigger bird to slay was Charter change and prevent it from happening. It is the inevitable target of those who do not wish our country well — the term extension accusation is merely the ruse. Those who have been in this advocacy for a long time know this from previous experience. The stratagems are consistent with the history of Charter change advocacy in this country since our independence.

* * *

We should be wary of this orchestrated public opinion that claims to reject Charter change. Wiser and more patriotic Filipino leaders should help less able compatriots to recognize this assault on the country’s sovereignty. Yeh. We accept Charter change. But not until after the 2010 elections, ok? All that cry for honesty is to delude us into believing that “honest” elections is the key to better governance at the same time that there is no shame in boasting that only candidates with money, lots of money and celebrity popularity (and this to be decided by surveys) have a chance to win. Honestly.

This is the most clever ploy of all and not the first time foisted on the Filipino public each time Charter change is proposed. Unfortunately some have been misled through a combination of factors, the most important being presidential aspirants and stakeholders in the status quo. Nothing but nothing should get in the way of their ambition because their personal interests are above the country’s welfare.

Never mind if without Charter change before the 2010 elections, we will have yet another democratic farce and bring us no closer to the more democratic society our forefathers fought for when they gave up their lives against colonialists.

The divide and conquer rule is best at work in a country that has not shaken off the effects of colonialism.

Here we are with both houses of Congress in agreement with Charter change but they cannot come together even to debate the issues as mandated by Constitution. Our politics and governance are hostages to powerful forces operating in the shadows that were set forth by America’s manifest destiny. We were free to act out our independence in little issues but not when it comes to big ones.

If both houses are in agreement on Charter change why are they unable to cross the line to work together? President Arroyo is not the enemy even if powerful forces have made it appear to be so. The real enemy hides behind the shadows and its real intent has been and will always be in the foreseeable future to dominate this country. The invasion of Iraq, as Stephen Kinzer wrote in his book “Overthrow” is traceable to the forces that began in the Philippines in 1898.

Filipinos should examine historical precedents and its effects on today’s politics. This is being drowned out in the guise of moral assumptions. This does not mean that we should run away from the issue of term extension. On the contrary, we must confront it and find a way to put it in context.

President Arroyo should not be used as an excuse against Charter change. Her service to the country will be weighed against her performance and the infrastructure built during her term. That can be quantified and ought to be quantified instead of going along with unproven accusations that do nothing for ordinary Filipinos and the country in general.

* * *

Speaker Prospero Nograles of the House and Sen. Aquilino Pimentel of the Senate, each with their own proposals have the duty to come together to debate and formulate the question of Charter changes along with the issue of term extension on behalf of the people they are mandated to serve.

Term extension should be debated and brought into the open to satisfy protagonists instead of using it as the ruse against the country’s need for real reforms.