Cha Cha Issue

‘Cha-cha’ could lead to bigger problems — legal experts

THE PUSH to change the 1987 Constitution is a lethal experiment that could plunge the Philippines into deeper
problems, constitutional experts told the Senate on Monday.

“Amendments or revisions to the Constitution at this time would be a lethal experiment, a fatal hit, a plunge to death, a
Cha-cha dance to the grave or to hell,” Hilario G. Davide, Jr., a former chief justice and one of the framers of the
Constitution, told senators.

Congress should focus on cutting red tape and corruption instead of seeking to ease foreign ownership restrictions in the
1987 Charter, he said.

“It is my firm and unchangeable stand that there are no valid scenarios and compelling reasons to amend our 1987
Constitution,” the legal expert said.

“What our country and our people need today are not amendments to provisions of the Constitution but the full
implementation of its principles and state policies,” he added.

Lawmakers should instead craft measures to boost the quality of education and address the lack of early childhood care,
former Election Chairman and constitutional framer Christian S. Monsod told the same hearing.

Filipino students ranked 77th out of 81 countries in the 2022 Program for International Student Assessment, performing
worse than the global average in all categories. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development conducts
the global assessment yearly.

Mr. Monsod also said the advertising industry, which has largely gone digital, would not benefit from increased foreign
capital. The sector is limited to Filipinos.

But former Supreme Court Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna said ownership restrictions on education, public utilities and
advertising should not be in the Constitution but should be enforced through regular laws.

“Economic policies should be flexible to meet changing times in the economy,” he told senators. “Other countries that
have restrictive economic provisions don’t have them in their Constitutions but in their ordinary laws that can be easily
changed.”

Albay Rep. Jose Ma. Clemente S. Salceda earlier said the Senate proposal to open these industries to foreigners would
unlock 3.1% in economic output, which he said was not enough.

“Undertaking the amendments would open up the country to higher incomes and better employment for our workers,
and greater pride in relation to our neighbors,” former National Economic and Development Authority Secretary
Gerardo P. Sicat said at the hearing.

Jose Enrique A. Africa, Ibon Foundation executive director, told senators the government should focus on developing
local industries because foreign companies would probably focus on short-term instead of long-term profit.

Also on Monday, Senator Robinhood Ferdinand “Robin” C. Padilla, who heads the Senate committee on constitutional
amendments, filed a resolution calling on both chambers of Congress to vote separately on Charter change (“Cha-cha”).

The Constitution provides that changes may be proposed through a three-fourths vote of congressional members. There
is a debate whether the Senate and House of Representatives should vote separately or as one chamber.

Mr. Padilla said the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended for the Senate and House to vote separate on Charter
change, consistent with the country’s bicameral Legislature.

Philippine senators earlier opposed a proposal for Congress to vote jointly, which they said would dilute the Senate’s
vote on constitutional amendments.

‘PEOPLE’S CHARTER’

The Constitution may be amended either through a constitutional convention composed of delegates, by Congress
sitting as a constituent assembly or through a people’s initiative.

For an amendment through a people’s initiative, the signatures must account for at least 12% of voters nationwide and
3% of voters in each legislative district.

The Supreme Court rejected a similar initiative campaign in 1997 in the absence of an enabling law.
“Let’s not think that this (changing the Constitution) is a miracle, that when we pass it, investors and entrepreneurs will
suddenly come knocking on our door,” Senator Juan Edgardo M. Angara told the hearing. “By all means, let us explore
the possibilities.”

Also on Monday, EDSA Lives, a group opposing Charter change, said foreigners are more concerned about the country’s
justice system than ownership limits.

“The real problems that we have today have nothing to do with the Constitution,” lawyer Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno
told a forum.

The lawyer, who is also the chairman of the Free Legal Assistance Group, said foreign investors are reluctant to enter the
country because the Philippine legal system is not fair. “Many are afraid to invest here because they know that if they
get involved in a case, they are disadvantaged,” he said in Filipino.

“No one, whether they are for or against Charter change, must be allowed to exploit the Constitution to serve their
political interest or agenda,” he added.

The government of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. should instead address soaring prices, poverty, hunger,
criminality, corruption, lack of income and employment and access to the legal system.

“There are many other ways to improve the economy without having to change the Constitution and in so doing,
opening it up to so many other vulnerabilities,” University of the Philippines political science professor Francis Joseph A.
Dee told the forum.

Michael Charleston B. Chua, who teaches history at De La Salle University, called the 1987 Constitution the “people’s
Charter” because it was ratified by 77% of Filipino voters on Feb. 2, 1987.

The Charter decentralized power after the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, Sr. controlled all branches of government
under his rule for two decades, he said.

Akbayan Party President Rafaela David said lawmakers could introduce any changes other than economic provisions.

Last month, several congressmen were linked to a signature campaign to amend the Constitution through a so-called
people’s initiative.

“Because of all of this, we have trust issues on who should change the Constitution,” Mr. Chua told BusinessWorld after
the forum. “If the Constitution should be changed, it should be the people’s will, not any politician’s.”

EXPLAINER: The process of Cha-cha and why we should monitor it

MANILA, Philippines — The controversial issue of Charter change (Cha-cha)—or amending and/or revising the
Constitution—is once again on the table with the House of Representatives set to resume debates as early as next week.

Some lawmakers have argued that the country’s 33-year old Constitution, which took effect in 1987 under the
leadership of then President Corazon Aquino, needs to be amended to keep up with time.

But critics have also questioned the timing of the push to amend the Constitution, especially at a time when the country
continues to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic.

Concerns that Cha-cha will also be abused, especially when among the amendments being pushed deal with term
extension and changing the term limit of lawmakers, have also been raised amid the approaching 2022 elections.

Since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, there have been several attempts to tinker with the country’s highest law.
However, none of them were successful.

One contributing reason? The process.

Amendments vs revisions

In general, two changes can be introduced to the Constitution: amendments and revisions.

An amendment includes basic changes that will not affect the Constitution’s structure, whereas revisions entail changes
in the structure.

Cagayan de Oro, Rufus Rodriguez

Deputy Speaker Rufus Rodriguez. Image from his Facebook page

“Revision will mean a fundamental change in the fundamental law,” Deputy Speaker Rufus Rodriguez, former
chairperson of the House committee on constitutional amendments and a lawyer by profession, told INQUIRER.net.

Revisions include changing the structure of the government, changing of powers of the branches of government. Thus, a
shift from a unitary centralized system of government to a federal government is considered a revision.

Con-ass, Con-con and People’s Initiative

Meanwhile, there are three ways to propose amendments or revisions to the 1987 Constitution—the constituent
assembly (Con-ass), the constitutional convention (Con-con), and the People’s Initiative.

Through a vote of three-fourths of all of its members, Congress can convene into a constituent assembly and propose
amendments or revisions to the Constitution. This body will be made up of all congressmen and senators.

Meanwhile, by a vote of 2/3rds of all of its members, Congress can also call for a constitutional convention that will be
composed of elected delegates by the public. Further, by a majority vote of all of its members, Congress can also submit
to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

Under Con-con, the elected delegates will be the ones to introduce amendments and/or revisions to the Constitution.

The public can also directly propose changes to the Constitution through the People’s Initiative.

According to Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, this entails “a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters therein.”

‘Vague’ process

Political analyst Rommel Banlaoi pointed out that immediately, there are already problems encountered concerning the
process of Cha-cha.

For instance, the Constitution does not specify whether the two chambers of Congress will vote jointly or separately
during the Cha-cha process.

“When it comes to joint [votation], the Senate will be outnumbered because there are only 24 of them, so that’s the
issue that we still need to clarify,” Banlaoi said.

Currently, there are 301 members of the House. This essentially means that, should the chambers vote jointly, a majority
of House members can easily make the decisions during the Cha-cha process as there are only 24 senators.

“It’s a perennial issue. Until now it has not been resolved yet so I think there is a need for Congress to really enact a law
to clarify the process. We need a law to clarify the process of Con-ass, Con-con and even People’s Initiative,” Banlaoi
said.

In an interview with reporters on Thursday, January 7, Senate President Vicente Sotto III said that Speaker Lord Allan
Velasco seems amenable to both houses voting separately for the charter amendments.

Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III Alex Nueva España/Senate PRIB)

“We should vote separately; we cannot vote jointly. We have to resolve that once and for all,” Sotto said.

“Later on, Speaker Velasco sounded like he was amenable with the idea of voting separately. Bottomline, the ending, I
told the President, ‘3/4s vote to approve any amendments through a constituent assembly,’” the Senate President
added as he recalled a meeting with President Rodrigo Duterte back in November 2020 attended by some senators and
congressmen.

However, the two chambers voting jointly or separately is just one problem as another issue deals with cost and
practicality.

Banlaoi said that Con-ass, Con-Con, and People’s Initiative all have their strengths and weaknesses.

He said that while Con-ass serves as a quicker process, it could also make way for a “President’s Constitution” if most
Congress members are aligned with the President.

“Constituent assembly, it’s quicker to do it because you already have existing Congress to be the delegates. You don’t
need an election for that because there are already elected officials to do it,” Banlaoi said.
“The disadvantage of a constituent assembly is if the majority of the members of the Congress are supportive of the
current administration, then you will end up having a Constitution that will reflect the agenda of the current
administration,” he added.

Meanwhile, Banlaoi said that while Con-con can be beneficial in terms of having various members of the delegation, this
could also take more time and financial resources.

“People’s Initiative is also longer, slower but it’s more reflective of the sentiments of the people because it is initiated by
the people. However, in our experience, People’s Initiative in amending the Constitution is difficult to pursue,” Banlaoi
said.

People’s approval

Once the amendments have been approved under Con-ass or Con-con, the next step will be the national plebiscite.

Here, the proposed amendments and revisions have to be discussed with the public for them to be able to make an
informed decision in their vote to approve or disapprove the Constitution.

Banlaoi said all platforms—including mass media and social media—should be utilized in educating the public.

“Majority of the voters (public) should approve or disapprove the proposed amendments or proposed new Constitution.
It has to secure the majority votes,” Banlaoi said.

“If you have a community of informed citizens, you can make the right choice during elections, during referendums, or
during the plebiscite,” he added.

Banlaoi said the public should be informed and monitor the issue of Cha-cha “because the provisions in the Constitution
will affect their lives.”

“The Constitution is the law of the land and any law that will be passed will affect the lives of the people whether this
law will cater to the vast majority of the people or will only cater to the few,” Banlaoi said.

“The law legalizes the state’s practice—whether the state’s practice will improve the lives of the people or aggravate the
lives of the people—so that should be their concern,” he added. [ac]

In the Philippines, a political dance around constitutional change quite literally a cha-cha.

The Philippine House of Representatives opened the second regular session of congress last month, with some
legislators looking to kick-start the controversial process of amending the constitution. Charter change – or “cha-cha”, as
locals put it – has been part of President Rodrigo Duterte’s thrust since he came into power.

The current constitution, ratified in 1987, was produced after the tumultuous and draconian Marcos dictatorship of the
1970s and 1980s. Its provisions specifically created the single six-year presidential term, along with other safeguards to
unchallenged leadership. It is a key document to mark the country’s shift away from open autocracy. So any attempt to
revise it can be easily portrayed as a political power grab.

Duterte seems more intent than his predecessors in pursuit of charter change. While all four presidents before him
have, in one way or another, proposed cha-cha, Duterte has been its most vocal and frequent endorser. He and his
political allies have made five attempts already – all met with public backlash and eventually retracted.

One proposal is to extend terms for elected officials, prompting fears around accountability and process. Yet are such
concerns warranted? This month, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) unveiled a petition by more
than 1400 mayors clamouring to lift the term limits for city leaders. While this does not apply to their national
counterparts, it signals an open call for splicing the charter. The DILG, however, has tried to allay such fears by denying
that the term-extension proposal would extend to the president. However, Congressman Rufus Rodriguez also said this
month he plans to call for a meeting of the constitutional amendments committee of the House to discuss how best to
proceed.

If a motion to include term extensions is approved, it effectively cancels the upcoming 2022 elections. After that, all bets
are off.

More importantly, once the constituent assembly (congressional and senate representatives collectively responsible for
deliberating on amendments) is convened, any and all pronouncements on maintaining checks and balances can be left
aside. In other words, no legislator is officially bound to keep their promises. If a motion to include term extensions is
approved, it effectively cancels the upcoming 2022 elections. After that, all bets are off.
What makes it different this time – and more likely to succeed? The pandemic.

Covid-19 has made the bad worse and made our nightmares a real possibility. Since the virus and lockdowns hit, the
Duterte administration has managed to push through a number of schemes previously held back by public outrage. They
have rid jeepney drivers of their livelihoods, in favour of newer transport vehicles. They have given Duterte emergency
powers, passed the controversial anti-terrorism law, outlawed major protests, shut down a major broadcasting station
critical of political leaders, and effectively turned the country into a police state – all under the guise of dealing with a
public health crisis.

The pandemic is the best thing to ever happen to their political aspirations. Lifting term extensions could well be the
next one in their sights.

The timing could not be worse for Filipinos desperately looking for adequate responses from the state in curbing the
crisis. The country continues to grapple with the pandemic, with Covid-19 cases now at more than 113,000. Officially,
the Philippines now has more patients than China, with just 7.6% of the population. Yet even at this critical juncture,
Duterte and his allies seem more concerned with self-preservation and political consolidation than with public health
and social assistance.

Rodrigo Duterte and his daughter Sara Duterte attend the enthronement ceremony of Japanese Emperor Naruhito, 22
October 2019 in Tokyo (The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images)

In the past few months, clamour for the ouster of Duterte has reached a fever pitch. The noise online and on the street
grows, as the hashtag #OustDuterte remains a daily trend on social media, various unaligned and neutral members of
society are speaking up, and – despite quarantine bans on mass gatherings and police threats on demonstrations –
crowds have turned up to denounce the government. In light of all this, gertting rid of elections would be the surest way
to maintain the current crop of officials for the foreseeable future.

There is some hesitation, however, from Duterte’s allies. House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano professed that tackling
cha-cha might best be reserved for January, when the spread of the virus has perhaps been curbed. Duterte himself has
made no endorsement of the proposal in any of his speeches. At his State of the Nation Address at the opening of the
House, he preferred to praise China and champion the possibility they might produce a coronavirus vaccine.

Pandering to Beijing has been another distinct feature of this presidency. The administration’s cha-cha proposals align
with that approach, as part of the much-touted economic provisions include opening up the country’s assets to greater
foreign ownership and control. China is already the country’s leading trade partner, and cha-cha would only bolster that
partnership.

Duterte’s dictatorship, or the rise towards it, has been well documented, as have the plans for cha-cha. Will they wait
until January, or will opposition mount a fight to thwart the move yet again?

What is certain is that what feels like an ill-timed move for the population is an opportune moment for the
administration to strike at cementing the status quo.