“I don’t think anyone here can safely say he or she is going to be the president because 2028 is still too far [off]. A lot of things can still happen,” Pulse Asia Research Inc. president Ronald Holmes said Tuesday night on the podcast “Facts First” hosted by Christian Esguerra. 

Holmes also defended Pulse Asia’s survey showing the majority of Filipinos opposed to Charter change from lawmakers assailing the use of alleged leading questions. 

In the survey on presidential candidates, Tulfo was the preferred candidate for president among 35% of registered voters polled between March 6 and 10, followed by Duterte at 34%. The survey had a margin of error of + or – 3%.    

Tulfo, who parlayed his popularity as a public-affairs show host on radio and YouTube into electoral victory in 2022, ranked higher than Duterte in the National Capital Region, the rest of Luzon, and the Visayas. 

Surprisingly, Tulfo garnered 46% over Duterte’s 20% in the Visayas, Holmes noted. But in Mindanao, the political base of the Duterte family, the Vice President had 72% over Tulfo’s 18%. 

Holmes expressed the belief that Duterte’s 34% represented her political base of supporters, specifically the 32 million Filipinos who voted for her as vice president in 2022.  “She carried them over from the previous election,” he said. 

Pulse Asia confirmed that the survey results on the presidential and vice-presidential preferences came from “rider questions” that were included in its Ulat ng Bayan survey in March.

‘Nobody paid’

Another Pulse Asia survey last month showed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. enjoying a 55% approval rating. Duterte had 67%, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri 52%, and Speaker Martin Romualdez 31%.

When asked if Duterte paid for this survey through subscription, Holmes said: “As a matter of policy, we neither confirm nor deny … But I will answer categorically: No.”

He added: “Nobody paid. No government officials were involved.” 

Holmes acknowledged that academic research is funded by external agencies. “But we will not surrender our autonomy to the funder. Because if you do that, you will no longer be called academic; you will be a mercenary,” he said. 

He also said it is not uncommon to find vice presidents enjoying higher approval ratings than presidents in previous administrations from Fidel V. Ramos’ to that of Benigno Aquino III. (In the Duterte administration, then Vice President Leni Robredo was “sidelined,” he observed).  

But it’s “not fair” to compare the approval ratings of the president and the vice president because they perform different functions, and the people hold the president “more accountable” than the vice president, Holmes said. 

Trust ratings are another matter, and the public can compare trust ratings because trust is dependent, not on the position, but on the person, he said. 

‘Multi-stage’ sampling method 

As for Pulse Asia’s survey showing that three of four Filipinos are opposed to Charter change at any time, Holmes defended it from lawmakers’ claims that its questions were skewed against the proposed amendments. 

He said it was part of their regular Ulat ng Bayan survey, which was funded by Pulse Asia itself, and was not commissioned by anyone else.

Holmes said that as in the 20 surveys on Charter change Pulse Asia has conducted since 2003, it employed the “multi-stage” sampling method, in which the province, city, municipality, and barangay, as well as the respondents in a household, were randomly picked.  

The face-to-face interviews—the gold standard in many countries—were conducted in the language preferred by the respondents even though the questions were formulated in Filipino. These lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. 

The “enumerators”—Pulse Asia’s researchers deployed to households to do the survey—are trained in how to read and ask a particular item, and how to respond to a question from the respondents, Holmes said. 

They begin by posing general questions before proceeding to specific ones. In this particular survey, the respondents were first asked if they were aware of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, how much they knew the Constitution, and if they were in favor of rewriting it, he said. 

They were then asked about the specific resolutions from both the Senate and the House of Representatives to ease limits on foreign ownership of public utilities, educational institution and advertising industry

“So there’s no framing of the mindset of the interviewee because the questions asked are from general to specific,” Holmes said. 

Formulated by professors

According to Holmes, the questions were formulated by Pulse Asia’s team of professors from the University of the Philippines and De La Salle University. A number of these questions date back to 2003, when the polling firm began its surveys on Charter change.  

Pulse Asia also accepts “rider questions” from external organizations. “But if we don’t agree on the formulation of the question, we will not run it,” he said. 

House Deputy Speaker David Suarez and Majority Floor Leader Manuel Dalipe had questioned the survey’s “biased and leading questions,” which, they claimed, could have influenced its outcome. 

Suarez cited the questions about changing the current system into a federal government; term extension for national and local elective officials; changing the presidential system to a parliamentary system of government; and shifting from a bicameral to unicameral legislature.

“Of course,” Holmes said, “we also wanted to know what the people’s position is on, say, a shift from unitary to federal system. So here, you will see a shift. Where before they were split, now, they are not in favor of a shift from unitary to federal system.” 

Holmes said the sentiment of a “significant majority” of Filipinos against Charter change may be an offshoot of the irregularities-marred gathering of signatures for a people’s initiative, the crossing of swords between lawmakers in the Senate and the House over the process, and the street protests against the fresh push for constitutional amendments.  

“For me, as a political scientist, [the issue] has become a bit more polarized and divisive. What happened was it became disruptive. Perhaps this would explain their sentiment,” he said.

The 78% of Filipinos expressing opposition to the proposed rewriting of the Constitution is the “highest’’ so far recorded by Pulse Asia since 2003 when it began conducting surveys on Charter change, according to Holmes.

Read more: Only Supreme Court can resolve ‘Achilles’ heel’ of Charter change resolutions, legal luminaries say

The post 2028 election too far off for anyone to claim to be the future prez – Pulse Asia appeared first on CoverStory.

“We can save much time and effort if this is resolved once and for all by the Supreme Court,” said Rene Sarmiento, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. Former chief justice Reynato Puno said Congress should settle the issue first; “otherwise,” he said, “there will be a challenge” at the Supreme Court. He pointed out that the Makabayan bloc of lawmakers in the House of Representatives had manifested an intention to elevate to the high court the “procedural infirmities” of a joint congressional resolution. 

“Most probably, the high court will intervene because it is a matter of innate or proper interpretation that the questions that are being raised are novel,” Puno added. 

The forum, “Do We Need Charter Change? Issues and Alternatives,” was presented by the Center for People Empowerment in Governance in cooperation with the Office of the UP President, UP College of Law, and UP Law Center.

Separate hearings

After a spat over the controversial people’s initiative to rewrite the Charter, the Senate and the House have separately begun hearing joint resolutions that seek to ease limits on foreign ownership of public utilities, educational institutions and the advertising industry. This would entail Congress convening itself into a constituent assembly to introduce amendments or revisions to the Charter.  

In his remarks, Puno spoke at length about Article 17, Section 1.1 of the Constitution, calling it the “Achilles’ heel” of the joint resolutions of both chambers.  

“Unless this constitutional issue is settled, all these discussions about amending certain alleged restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution may just be too precipitate,” he said.

Article 17, Section 1.1 of the Constitution provides that Congress may propose an amendment by a vote of three-fourths of all its members.  

According to Puno, members of the 1986 constitutional convention that crafted the Charter had the impression that a unicameral Congress would be adopted; thus, they prepared Article 17, Section 1.1, But at “the last minute,” he said, a bicameral Congress was adopted.

“In the rush of things, they forgot to adjust their recommendation on how to amend the Constitution, where Congress is bicameral and meeting as a constituent assembly,” he said. “Hence, we have this anomalous Article 17, 1.1 which is fit for a unicameral Congress. It’s an unfortunate inadvertence. Some call it momentary amnesia.”

2 schools of thought

This situation resulted in two opposite schools of thought on how Congress, convened as a constituent assembly, should meet and vote—that is, “whether they should meet jointly and vote separately,” Puno said.  

The first school of thought maintains that the specific provision “is an admitted case of inadvertence” and, hence, should be “disregarded,” he said. “They submit that any interpretation should consider that what we have is a bicameral Congress, and should not stray from the tradition and practice that when its members convene as a constituent assembly, they meet jointly and they vote separately.” 

The second school of thought was espoused by the late Jesuit priest, lawyer and professor Joaquin Bernas, who asserted that this provision grants Congress the power to act as a constituent assembly to rewrite the Charter, Puno said. Thus, “how the two Houses shall meet, and how they shall vote—whether jointly or separately—is up to the senators and the congressmen to determine by the rules that they will adopt.”

Bernas, who was among the framers of the Constitution, theorized that Congress can “decide these details in view of the silence” of Article 17, Section 1.1, Puno said.

Puno believes that both chambers are now adopting Bernas’ stand. But this would invite a “constitutional challenge” given that it was a “personal view” that Bernas expressed after the ratification of the Charter, Puno said.

3 ways  

The former chief justice proposed three ways to settle the “constitutional quandary.” 

The first is to submit the matter directly to the people for judgment through a referendum. The second is to have this repealed by Congress sitting as a constituent assembly. 

“They should craft a provision that is fit for a bicameral Congress. They should revisit the 1935 Constitution,” Puno said. “Acting as a constituent assembly should mean ‘meet jointly and vote separately’.”

And the third is to bring the matter to the Supreme Court “for interpretation.” 

Puno expressed confidence that the high court would take up the matter. Under the Constitution, its judicial power is “expanded,” which includes the duty to “determine any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” by any branch of the government, including Congress, he said.

Foreign investments  

Puno also raised the caveat that the matter of questioning the constitutionality of Congress’ actions alone would trigger reservations among potential investors. 

“The moment that the high court entertains this case, and if you’re a foreign investor, and you’re uncertain of the constitutionality of these amendments, will you come in?” he said in response to questions.  

Risk analyst Emmanuel Leyco agreed with Puno. “Charter change is an indicator of political instability. Why? Because there’s this suspicion that the economic issues are not the major issues. The real issue here is term limits,” he said, citing a common argument of those opposed to current efforts to amend the Constitution. 

Sarmiento said that contrary to claims by the proponents, the joint resolutions of both the Senate and the House are not the “Solomonic solution” to the revision of the allegedly restrictive provisions of the Constitution.   

“It will not unlock the economic potential of the Philippines,” said Sarmiento, a former elections commissioner. “Foreign investors will not come because of relaxed or liberal economic provisions.” 

Surveys in recent years showed that business’ confidence was influenced by such factors as corruption, macroeconomic volatility, geopolitical conflict, inflation, cyber risk and social inequality, expensive electricity and slow internet, among others, he said.

The post Only Supreme Court can resolve ‘Achilles’ heel’ of Charter change resolutions, legal luminaries say appeared first on CoverStory.

When politicians tried to have their way in the crafting of the 1973 Constitution, they were met with street protests in the tumultuous early years of Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s regime.

The writing on the wall was very clear. Filipinos “didn’t want politicians to be involved in the drafting of the Constitution,” human rights activist Edmundo “Ed” Garcia recalled in a recent Zoom interview with CoverStory.ph. 

“Remember that the First Quarter Storm was an offshoot of the protests of young people and students to make sure that we have a nonpartisan constituent assembly,” Garcia said, referring to the period from January to March 1970.  

He said the protests 54 years ago and today’s growing opposition to fresh moves to amend the 1987 Constitution should serve as a “warning” to the proponents. 

“It’s a warning to them not to destabilize the situation further. It’s already destabilized,” Garcia said, pointing out that Filipinos are groaning under the weight of poverty, unemployment, injustice, and poor policies on food production, agriculture and education. 

If anything, he said, the country’s leaders should focus on addressing the urgent and long-term needs of Filipinos instead of wasting time and resources on “political maneuvering.”

“This kind of people’s initiative that they’re forcing on us is really not coming from the people. It’s coming from a few politicians who want perhaps to enlarge the possibility of retaining their power,” he said of the now discontinued mode of amending the Charter.

The Constitution, drafted in the aftermath of the February 1986 bloodless people’s revolt that brought down the Marcos dictatorship and catapulted Corazon Aquino to the presidency, “is not the problem, but part of the solution,” Garcia said. 

He said that while it’s “imperfect,” it carries safeguards against the return of dictatorship, institutes a system of checks and balances, enshrines the bill of rights of Filipinos, and fosters people’s participation in policymaking, among many others. 

Constitutional commission 

Garcia was among the framers of the 1987 Constitution. At 43, he was tapped to be part of the constitutional commission (Con-Com) in 1986 to draft a new charter that would replace the 1973 Constitution. At the time he was teaching political science at the University of the Philippines and Latin American studies at the Ateneo de Manila University.  

Cecilia Muñoz-Palma was elected Con-Com president; Ambrosio Padilla, vice president; and veteran journalist Napoleon Rama, floor leader. 

The commission also included Felicitas Aquino, Adolfo Azcuna, Teodoro Bacani, Jose Bengzon Jr., Joaquin Bernas, Florangel Rosario Braid, Roberto Concepcion, Hilario Davide Jr., Vicente Foz, Jose Luis Martin Gascon, Jose Laurel Jr., Regalado Maambong, Christian Monsod, Teodulo Natividad, Ma. Teresa Nieva, Jose Nolledo, Blas Ople, Minda Luz Quesada, Florenz Regalado, Francisco “Soc’’ Rodrigo, Rene Sarmiento, Lorenzo Sumulong, Christine Tan and Bernardo Villegas. 

It took them at least four months, from June 1 to Oct. 16, 1986, to draft the document, but only after undertaking a rigorous process.

Garcia, who chaired the public hearings committee, said they suspended the sessions in Manila in the early days, packed their bags, and traveled to the countryside to hold consultations with the people “from Batanes to Sulu.”

“I said, ‘Stop. We can’t continue to craft this Constitution unless we consult our co-authors.’ We have to go out to the country and listen to their opinions, or ideas’,” he recalled telling the other delegates.  

“It is very important to the process that you incorporate the ideas of the people. So we came back to incorporate a good number of ideas that came from the ground,” he added.  

Forty-four delegates voted for the draft and two others voted against it. In a plebiscite on Feb. 2, 1987, 16.6 million Filipinos voted in favor of ratification while 4.9 million others voted against it. It came into force on Feb. 11, 1987, with President Aquino, other government officials, and military officers swearing allegiance to it, according to the Official Gazette. 

Word war 

The latest attempt to amend the Charter through a people’s initiative has been marred by allegations of bribery and use of government funds in the gathering of signatures. 

Senators have accused their colleagues in the House of Representatives of orchestrating the initiative for political ends, sparking a bitter word war. 

The people’s initiative has since taken a backseat, with the Senate and the House each hearing identical measures that seek to relax limits on foreign ownership of public utilities, educational institutions and the advertising industry.

This would entail Congress forming a constituent assembly to introduce amendments to the Charter.

In their statements to the press, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., key Senate and House leaders and the chair of the Commission on Elections agreed that holding the midterm elections simultaneously with a plebiscite to ratify the amendments in May 2025 would save costs—at least P13 billion in additional government expenses.

But Garcia said: “It’s very difficult once a constituent assembly is formalized. They can tinker with other provisions.”

“There’s a tendency obviously for people whose interests are being kind of pushed forward to make sure that what they want, rather than what the people’s needs are, prevail,” he added, echoing the sentiments of a growing number of individuals and groups opposed to the administration-backed Charter change. 

What investors look at

Garcia also found spotty the professed objective of Charter change proponents—to lure big-time investors into the country.

“What do the foreign investors look at? They look at the infrastructure, corruption, bribery, difficulty of doing business, political instability, economic malaise,” he said, adding: 

“In other words, what the investors are looking at are not so much the economic provisions of the Constitution [as] the nitty gritty of doing business. That there’s no monkey business in doing business.”

Garcia acknowledged that the fundamental law is “imperfect”—a fact that he said he stated when he explained his vote in favor of the draft Charter at the Con-Com plenary session in 1986—and, hence, needed some fixing.  

For instance, he said, its provisions on political dynasty and the party-list system need to be tweaked to better serve the public interest. 

“I voted yes for this Constitution knowing that it’s imperfect. Yet, sometimes even imperfect documents can help you transcend a turbulent period in our history. That’s what this document did,” Garcia said, referring to the series of coup attempts that besieged President Corazon Aquino’s administration in the late 1980s.

“So a Constitution is very important [as] a bulwark against all the possibilities for instability in our country,” he said. 

According to Garcia, he would be the first to rise in support of Charter change when the “right time comes along” and the “right people will do it.”

“There’s a saying, ‘God writes straight even with crooked lines.’ But when crooked people write the lines, you end up with crooked lines. Do you trust them?” he said, chuckling.

Read more: ‘Relive Edsa, Junk Cha-cha’ is the rallying cry

The post 1987 Charter ‘imperfect’ but carries safeguards vs instability, framer says appeared first on CoverStory.

One of their major demands was a nonpartisan constitutional convention (Con-con) to prevent the involvement of political parties and politicians and their families in the revision of the Commonwealth-era 1935 Constitution for selfish ends. The election of delegates to the Con-con in November 1970 was approved in a law passed in August 1969, three months before President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. won reelection.

On Jan. 30, 1970, just days after his first State of the Nation Address in his second term, Marcos met with representatives of “moderate” student groups who asked him to sign a binding document that he would not seek another term. Marcos was “infuriated” by this demand and rejected it, according to one account of the meeting.

Top of the agenda

More than half a century later, the Constitution is uncannily once again on top of the agenda of another generation of youth and student leaders, who have formed a broad national alliance against Charter change (Cha-cha) being pushed by lawmakers.

The Alliance of Youth against Charter Change (Tayo Against Cha-Cha) includes over 100 groups, from student councils to Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) units, according to the organizers who launched it at a press conference on Feb. 12.

The move to amend or revise the Constitution this time comes after the rise to the presidency of the dictator’s son and namesake, the break between Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte, and the Senate’s noncooperation with the House of Representatives led by the President’s cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez, in a “people’s initiative” for Cha-cha purportedly to relax the Charter’s economic provisions to encourage the entry of foreign investments.

The Cha-cha movement is also being pushed against the backdrop of a deliberate attempt to diminish the value of the 1986 People Power Revolution, which toppled Marcos, according to the #BuhayAngEdsa Campaign Network.

See: ‘Relive Edsa, Junk Cha-cha’ is the rallying cry

In a statement, the alliance said it was “united in opposition to moves by the government to railroad charter change over solutions to people’s issues.”

“We fervently urge the government and our policymakers to concentrate their efforts on addressing pressing concerns affecting the youth,” it said.

Nestie Villaviray, chair of Model SK Network, said during the press conference that the 1987 Constitution is a “legacy bequeathed to the youth after the dictatorship.”

The Constitution must be protected and defended against politicians who want to change it “because the people do not need Cha-cha, the students do not need Cha-cha, but genuine service for the citizens,” Villaviray said, adding:

“What our lawmakers should do instead is to pass laws that would give just wages and benefits to our workers, establish hospitals for free medical services, build classrooms with complete facilities for better learning, combat irregularities and corruption to encourage investors in our country, strengthen support to the local industries and the agricultural sector to end dependence on importation of rice, fish and other things, and most of all, to pass laws to terminate political dynasties in all government positions not just in the SK, and to hold corrupt politicians accountable.” 

Lawmakers supporting Cha-cha via the petition for a people’s initiative say that the least expensive way of doing this is to convene Congress into a constituent assembly (or con-ass), where the senators and congresspersons vote jointly to approve any amendments.

The move immediately fell under a cloud of suspicion when the President’s own sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, alleged that Romualdez had promised up to P20 million in government aid per congressional district to gather signatures. This was strongly denied by the Speaker.

The President openly supports Charter change, but “nothing more” than the economic provisions that limit foreign participation in businesses in the Philippines. But he said he opposed foreign ownership of land in the country—a major change that some House members are pushing for.

To mollify fears that Cha-cha would lead to changing certain political provisions, particularly term limits of elected officials, Romualdez stressed that “we do not advocate any political amendment.”

‘Very suspicious’

But Francis “Kiko” Dee, a grandson of Corazon Aquino who was swept to the presidency by the Edsa people power revolt, said he remained suspicious of Cha-cha.

He said the signature campaign for the people’s initiative intended only to compel a joint vote by the smaller Senate and the bigger House on any future amendments without stating the specific provisions to be changed right at the outset, leaving open the prospect of changing the political provisions of the Constitution once the work begins.

“We are very suspicious of any form of Cha-cha under this administration,” said Dee, who teaches political science at the University of the Philippines and serves as deputy executive director of the Ninoy and Cory Aquino Foundation.

Villaviray, the SK leader, said the Constitution did not have to be amended to attract foreign investments or to ease the business climate in the Philippines, citing the rise in the country’s investment grade under the late President Benigno Aquino III.

“Can we trust our legislators who, starting with the people’s initiative, already employed deception, power tripping on SK officials and exploitation of the hardships of Filipinos in gathering signatures?” he said.

Other student leaders cited the deteriorating quality of education as seen in the low international ratings of Filipino students in math, science and reading, and poor or inadequate school facilities.

They said a proposed amendment to allow 100% foreign ownership of schools would not solve these problems, and that these prospective new schools would still be out of reach to the majority of Filipino students whose education remained the responsibility of the state.  

Matthew Silverio, chair of the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (Scap), urged the government to declare an “education crisis” to focus solutions on problems that had piled up over the decades.

“We are outraged that while millions of young people and children are out of school and continuing to drop out of school … our lawmakers are rushing to sell our lands to foreigners, to foreign companies, by changing this Constitution,” Silverio said.

“Education is the cornerstone of progress and development. It is through education that we empower the youth, unlock their potential, and pave the way for a brighter tomorrow to be nation-builders,” he said. “Investing in education is investing in the future generation, in the future of the nation.”

Khylla Meneses, secretary general of Akbayan Youth, said the current Cha-cha move was “a case of fighting elites rallying to consolidate their power over the people and to shape the Charter change according to their self-interests.”

Meneses said the opposition to Charter change by Duterte and his family was “fake” as they supported such a movement when the former president was in power.

“We cannot expect any truth from the Dutertes,” she said “From spreading fake news to governing ineptly, the Dutertes are now portraying themselves as pseudo-oppositionists to gain an advantage in their dynastic war with the administration and escape accountability for their crimes.” 

Student council leaders

The youth alliance is headed by student council leaders of the University of the Philippines, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Bulacan State University, X-Ed Senior High School Coalition, University of the East Manila, National Teachers College, Batasan Hills National High School, City College of San Jose Del Monte, and the Junior Association of Local Colleges and Universities.

SK federation chairpersons and other SK officers from Manila, Pasig and Marikina, and progressive national youth and student groups such as Akbayan Youth, Scap and the Model SK Network are also part of the coalition.

Dee praised the “multigenerational effort” against Charter change but said it was “definitely the youth that have a bigger stake for the very simple fact that they’ll be around a lot longer.”

He said it was surprising to see the “very strong efforts” to amend the Constitution at this time.

“We cannot talk about Edsa without defending the Constitution” that institutionalized the gains and victories that resulted from the 1986 revolution, Dee said.

According to him, Edsa must be celebrated to honor the sacrifices of the people that made it happen.

“This year in particular, it is clear to us that there is an effort to set it aside, and that’s something we want to stand against,” Dee said. “In a very strong voice, we want to say that we love the fruit of Edsa. It is not perfect. No revolution is, no administration is. But because of Edsa, we enjoy the fact that we can call a presscon today.”

The President, unlike his predecessors, did not declare Feb. 25 a special holiday. Feb. 25, 1986, was the fourth day of the revolt. In the evening of that day, the dictator and his family and close associates fled Malacañang to their exile in Hawaii, where he died three years later.

The post Student leaders stand against Cha-cha appeared first on CoverStory.

Delisting the February 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution as a national holiday is bad enough; attempting to tinker yet again with its “legacy,” the 1987 Constitution, to push the interests of politicians is even worse.  

Moved by that common stand, dozens of civil society groups have banded together to resist any mode of Charter change under the Marcos administration and celebrate the gains of the bloodless people’s revolt that toppled the dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and catapulted Corazon “Cory” Aquino to the presidency. The Constitution is now being threatened by a “fake’’ people’s initiative to amend it, the coalition said.

“[We] celebrate Edsa, and as a sign of that celebration, we make formal our stand that we will defend its gains, a major foundation of which is the 1987 Constitution,’’ Teresita “Ging’’ Deles said at the launch of the #BuhayAngEdsa Campaign Network on Monday morning at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani auditorium in Quezon City.

“I see a real hunger of people to want to be able to make a stand together with others,’’ added Deles, the convenor of Tindig Pilipinas. 

For starters, the network is rallying Filipinos to join a “National Day of Prayer and Action’’ at the Edsa Shrine on Feb. 23 to commemorate the 38^th anniversary of the revolt and to make known their opposition to Charter change (Cha-cha).   

“We’re inviting people to come,” Francis “Kiko” Dee, deputy executive director of the Ninoy Aquino and Cory Aquino Foundation, told CoverStory.ph. “A lot of people are looking for a space to express their sentiment against Cha-cha, their indignation at what’s being done to Edsa.’’ 

This activity will be followed by a “freedom ride’’ by bikers, skaters and joggers on Ayala Avenue, Makati City, and a retelling of Cory Aquino’s oath-taking as president at Club Filipino in San Juan on the morning of Feb. 25. 

In the evening, a concert dubbed “EdsaKahitSaan” will be mounted at a venue yet to be announced and will culminate in a countdown to 9:05 p.m., the exact time the dictator Marcos Sr. and his family fled Malacanang.  

‘Height of unity’ vs oppression

The convenors described the 1986 revolt as the “height of Filipinos’ unity” against oppression by the Marcos regime, and vowed to oppose any means to rewrite its “legacy,’’ the 1987 Constitution, on the watch of the dictator’s son, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

“In the face of the nation’s pressing problems, Charter change initiatives are divisive, wasteful and unnecessary,” they said in a joint statement. 

Lawyer Chel Diokno, son of then senator Jose W. Diokno who was among those imprisoned during martial law, recalled that Marcos Sr. ditched the 1935 Constitution in favor of the 1973 Constitution to perpetuate himself in power. 

“Forty-one years later, here comes Cha-cha again. They want to set aside the 1987 Constitution to push their own political agenda and personal interest,’’ Diokno said. 

“The Constitution is the heart of our law, and the soul of our democracy. No one, whether they are for or against Charter change, must be allowed to exploit the Constitution to serve their political interest and agenda,’’ he added. 

Certain post-Edsa administrations also toyed with the idea of rewriting the Charter, but none prospered in the face of fierce opposition from the public that was distrustful of the proponents in Malacañang and Congress. 

‘Driven by personal interest’  

Akbayan president Rafaela David said claims that only the restrictive economic provisions would be amended could be a ruse to tinker with other provisions. Any amendment, she said, could open the floodgates for other amendments. 

“This is driven by personal interest,’’ David added. “Worse, it has also become a battleground for squabbles among different political factions.”

Diokno of the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation wondered: “Can they use a people’s initiative if it didn’t come from the people? What has come out in Senate hearings is that politics is behind this.’’

The House of Representatives-backed campaign to gather signatures for a petition for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution appears to have petered out. 

In an ongoing inquiry, senators have found the process to be riddled with irregularities. 

The animosity reached fever pitch when Sen. Imee Marcos, chair of the Senate’s electoral reforms committee, accused House Speaker Martin Romualdez, her first cousin, of dangling P20 million to each congressman to coax them to collect the signatures. The Speaker denied this. 

The Commission on Elections has halted its proceedings on the people’s initiative amid the Senate-House squabble, stressing the need to put in more regulations to avoid confusion of the law. 

Deles, a former presidential adviser on the peace process, raised the need for continuing public vigilance given that, she said, Charter change proponents might not stop with the “people’s initiative.” She expressed confidence that other groups would question the matter at the Supreme Court at the right time.  

She said certain politicians “will always find a way to stay in power.’’  

Platform for affirmation

According to Deles, President Marcos Jr.s’ Proclamation No. 368 excluding the 1986 Edsa revolt from the list of national holidays this year brought people’s organizations, NGOs, political parties and artists’ groups together to launch the network. 

The first goal is “to put the Edsa celebration back where it belongs, and give people a platform to affirm the true events and their meaning to our lives,’’  she said.

Dee, a grandson of Cory Aquino and the slain former senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., called on Filipinos to organize their own activities, such as “yellow-ribboning, ‘lugawan’ and story-telling’’ in commemorating the 1986 demonstration of people power.

He was recalling the yellow ribbons that adorned trees, posts, and cars as welcome symbols for Ninoy Aquino who was flying home from exile on Aug. 21, 1983, to join the fight against the Marcos dictatorship, and who was assassinated upon landing at the then Manila International Airport.

Yellow ribbons and confetti eventually became symbols of opposition that helped bring Cory Aquino to power.

Read more: Detention, ‘town arrest’ under martial law

The post ‘Relive Edsa, Junk Cha-cha’ is the rallying cry appeared first on CoverStory.

Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri’s surprise filing on Jan. 15 of Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 6 proposing the amendment of certain economic provisions represents a stronger than usual push for Charter change. It used to be that only the majority in the House of Representatives avidly sought this drastic procedure that, in all the times it was attempted in past administrations, ultimately fell by the wayside.

This time things are shaping up fast. It was only in December that House Speaker Martin Romualdez raised the idea of amending the Constitution; mere days into the new year, a campaign for a people’s initiative appeared to be underway. Zubiri’s resolution, coauthored by Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda and Sen. Sonny Angara, signals a resolve by the Senate leadership not to allow the upper chamber’s strength and status to be clipped by the move seeking a “joint vote” for Charter change by two-thirds of all the members of Congress.

The demand for “economic Cha-cha”—the amendment of the Charter’s economic provisions alleged as stumbling blocks to the entry of foreign investments touted to lift the Philippines out of its backward state vis a vis its neighbors in the region—is louder, more strident. Pirma (or the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action) has stirred to life and, through a TV advertisement aired prime time, declared what in the past was merely slyly suggested: that the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution and its results, including the 1987 Constitution, were for naught and now getting in the way of progress.

The temerity of the script is stunning, although it seemed that only those of a certain age and political perspective swiftly took offense. The “creatives” who produced the ad on the cues of their principals could be said to have risen to their expected provocative level: As articulated by representatives of the Gana Atienza Avisado law firm that paid for the ad, it was intended as a trigger for a wider discussion of economic Cha-cha. But the ad’s use of the term “Edsapwera”—to mean the nation’s exclusion from progress because of a supposed constrained and limiting “Saligang Batas”—was telling and deserved deeper outrage for its dismissal of a high point in Philippine history: the toppling of Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship, a brutal regime that, among other economic factors, was marked by “hyperinflation of 50% in 1984, immediately followed by 23% in 1985,” according to Inquirer columnist Mahar Mangahas.

“These,” wrote Mangahas, president of the opinion survey firm Social Weather Stations, “were surely part of the fuel behind the Edsa People Power Revolution in 1986!”

In full swing

Still, the gathering of signatures looks to be in full swing, giving credence to the principals’ purported timeline that the Kabataan Partylist had earlier divulged, to the effect that a fait accompli would be presented as a midyear gift to President Marcos Jr. Already the Commission on Elections has announced receipt of signature sheets and forms for a purported people’s initiative. From the Cordillera in the north to the Bangsamoro in the south, the poll body’s local offices have received the documents, per Comelec Chair George Garcia, indicating a vigorous nationwide effort to produce the signatures of 12% of the Philippines’ registered voters on a petition for Charter change. 

Bishop Broderick Pabillo of the Apostolic Vicariate in far-off Taytay, Palawan, was the first of a number of Catholic bishops to warn the faithful not to sign any such petition, and to refuse money offered in exchange for their acquiescence, the activity being, in his pointed description, “not an initiative of the people but only of a few politicians.” 

Stories of big money changing hands for the purpose of buying the required signatures (denied by named parties) and of people signing in the belief that it was for ayuda, etc. are rife. So rife that even Sen. Imee Marcos, who chairs the Senate committee on electoral reform and people’s participation, saw fit early on to advise the citizenry to be aware that “tricking the people” is involved in the signature-gathering. Her friend and ally, Vice President Sara Duterte, has belatedly chimed in, lamenting the “pera-pirma” (money for signatures) as an insult to the dignity of poor folk.

In a  recent TV report, the President’s manang also lit into the Speaker, her first cousin, for his push for Charter change, quipping that one can’t choose one’s relatives.

The pertinent talking heads are being kept busy indeed. Garcia was quoted as saying that the Comelec could verify the authenticity of the signatures, but only after the formal petition had been filed. Imagine the tremendous expense and effort that would go into such an undertaking, supposedly to preclude possible coercion, bribery and fraud. And within 60 days yet. Nevertheless, Garcia subsequently said, those who eventually discover that they had signed the forms without fully understanding the nature of the enterprise are within their rights to withdraw their signatures.

“Ordinary people submitting boxes of signatures for verification by the Comelec”—as primly described by Cha-cha advocate Albay Rep. Joey Salceda—realizing they’ve been shafted, finding it unacceptable, and getting their signatures back? This potential display of enlightenment and quick restitution, many will agree, is something we’ve got to see. 

Political agendas

One question remains valid in this setting where political agendas almost always lurk behind proposals for economic progress: Is constitutional amendment the panacea for the anemic inflow of foreign investments? Many think not, correctly, including the minority in the Senate and in the House, as well as groups and individuals who constantly seek to air clear explanations of political developments and how these impact on the general public.

Through the noise, University of the Philippines economics professor Cielo Magno—undersecretary of finance until last September, when she ran afoul of authorities for posting her thoughts on the law of supply and demand as it pertains to the gut issue of rice, just as the President set a price ceiling on the precious grain—kept it simple. A genuine resolve to address such critical issues as corruption, the high price of electricity, the general difficulty of doing business in the Philippines, etc. would achieve much more in terms of drawing foreign investments than opening the Constitution for amendments, she said in the briefest of interviews with ANC’s “Pasada” on Jan. 15.

Unfortunate that the show hosts did not devote their running time for Magno to expound on the matter, but observers attentive to the realities in this unhappy archipelago surely got her drift. The realities become more entrenched as the days go by. For one example, power blackouts in Panay and Negros again occurred on the heels of the 4-day outage earlier in the month, doing havoc and posing a continuing threat to big and small businesses, yet the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines  is seemingly just coasting along. For another, ordinary Filipinos are struggling with ever-rising costs of rice and other staples, as well as of utilities, fuel, and virtually everything else. Farmers are losing their shirt (if they haven’t lost it already) in the face of imported produce. Other sectors are in turmoil, not least jeepney drivers and operators. Etc. 

So that tickets to the Coldplay concert have become an extreme, unthinkable luxury…

Dire straits

It should be evident that Charter change is hardly the solution to the dire straits in which many Filipinos now find themselves, even if, as announced, Angara would lead the Senate’s deliberations on RBH 6 and not Sen. Robinhood Padilla, the author of RBH 5 which seeks to lift term limits on elected officials. Padilla, the former action star and No. 1 in the last senatorial elections, chairs the committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes and is the Senate’s foremost pusher of Charter change. 

Those who oppose the opening of the Constitution for amendments are correct to warn of the great risks involved in the process. They are correct to direct attention instead to the urgency of curbing corruption in public office and guarding against the plunder of public funds and resources, in order to boost agriculture, foster genuine industrialization, and generate employment, among other measures. Good governance is, after all, as important as foreign investments, which are apparently still elusive despite the President’s numerous trips overseas (so numerous that the Philippines recently merited a question in “Jeopardy” on the country with the most globe-trotting leader).

But battle lines have been drawn in this power dance. Watch their moves.

Read more: Challenge to Congress: Easing of bank secrecy is necessary for economic Charter change

The post ‘Economic Cha-cha’ is sweeping the political dance floor appeared first on CoverStory.

With calls for Charter change (Cha-cha) once more gaining traction, the Foundation for Economic Freedom issued this statement last Jan. 4: “Economic Cha-cha is necessary but not enough. Other conditions, such as rule of law, good infrastructure and ease of doing business, among others, must be present to compete with other countries in attracting foreign investment.” 

The same position was conveyed by economist Solita Monsod at a hearing conducted last year by the House of Representatives on the matter of amending certain economic provisions of the Constitution. She enumerated similar other necessary conditions, most significant of which is the need to curb corruption.

Corruption is perhaps the biggest bane in our life as a nation and the most pernicious obstacle to achieving economic freedom. Corruption ruins the rule of law, retards needed infrastructure, and obstructs ease of doing business.

Economic Charter change and the other necessary conditions for attracting foreign direct investments involve tasks independent of one another. The easing of the 1955 bank secrecy law, or Republic Act (RA) No. 1405, ought to come first. It is vital to going after the corrupt and to shaping and ensuring transparency in governance.

Stamping out corruption requires policies directed against corruption. Amending RA 1405 can well be the nation’s biggest leap towards economic freedom.

Finance and business organizations have tried to get bank secrecy rules eased by another knot for tax purposes and predicate crimes and to allow the Philippines to comply with its international obligations.

BSP support

At a hearing of the Senate committee on banks in 2016, Amando Tetangco Jr., the then governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), was asked if he would support the repeal of RA 1405. 

Tetangco replied: “Our main concern, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the bank secrecy law, is in terms of being able to ensure that existing regulations are being complied with. That’s No. 1. And No. 2, to provide some form of deterrent for possible fraud, unlawful activity, or irregularity…” 

He added: “The Philippines is one of only three remaining countries in the world with such ultra secrecy. The other two are Lebanon and North Korea.”

Speaking at a special membership meeting of the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines in August 2022, the incumbent BSP governor, Felipe Medalla, said the central bank was requesting and needed support for more authority so it could examine suspect bank accounts, particularly those with possible links to illegal activities.

The International Monetary Fund finds a compelling rationale for amending the Philippines’ unusually strict bank secrecy regulations so that law enforcement and financial regulators can have complete and direct access to depositor information. It also says that the Philippines will be able to remove itself from the “gray list” of the Financial Action Task Force by revising its bank secrecy rules.

At present, no one can access records of bank transactions except in two instances: via a court order or by waiver of the depositor. A third exception, introduced in House Bill (HB) No. 8991 and approved by the House committee on banks and financial intermediaries of the 18^th Congress, is in cases where the inquiry or examination is made by the BSP, provided that there is reasonable ground to believe that fraud, serious irregularity, or unlawful activity has been or is being committed, and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud, irregularity, or unlawful activity. 

The results of the inquiry or examination shall be for the BSP’s exclusive use and shall not be made available except, as applicable, to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, Anti-Money Laundering Council, Department of Finance, Department of Justice, and/or the courts, provided that the sharing of the results of the inquiry or examination is necessary to prevent or prosecute any offense or crime.

The BSP is supporting HB 8991, or “An Act Promoting Transparent Governance and Instituting Anti-Corruption Mechanisms in the Operation of Banks, amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 1405.” The bill takes note of the deliberations during the hearings conducted by the House committee on banks and financial intermediaries, in which various stakeholders—including the Bankers Association of the Philippines, Chamber of Thrift Banks, Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines, Cooperative Banks Federation of the Philippines, Alliance of Non-Stock Savings & Loan Associations, and Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines—participated and provided comments.

In this 19^th Congress, HB 7446, which is similar to HB 8991, was approved by the House on third reading on May 8, 2023. In the Senate, a similar measure, Senate Bill No. 1839 filed by Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian on Feb. 6, 2023, is pending at the chamber’s committee on banks and financial institutions and currencies.

Indirect initiative

As a means of support, Kapatiran Party may file in both chambers of Congress a similar version of HB 8991 through indirect initiative. 

RA 6735 defines indirect initiative as “the exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action.” It adds: “The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure before the House of Representatives except that the said initiative bill shall have precedence over the pending legislative measures on the committee.” 

To give precedence means to give priority or more importance. The people’s right ingrained in the law is substantial.

Establishing a government that shall promote the general welfare of the nation is a duty not just of our leaders but, more importantly, of each Filipino, collectively. Only in working together in a cohesive manner can we influence Congress to undo corruption by passing an amended bank secrecy law. There is no better alternative.

What more can we do together to raise the importance of amending the bank secrecy law to the wider public, gather massive support, and break open the congressional walls of personal interests?

Norman V. Cabrera is president of the Kapatiran Party. —Ed.

Read more: To nourish a legacy of criticism and scholarship in the academe

The post Challenge to Congress: Easing of bank secrecy is necessary for economic Charter change appeared first on CoverStory.