|
Friday, January 24, 2003
Roperos: ‘Cha-cha’ power play
By Godofredo M. Roperos
NOW, our politicians in Congress have found another excuse to play around rather than concentrate on making this nation great again. The skirmish over the proposal to change the Constitution has become quite a cause celebre among members of both the House and the Senate. On the one hand, there are those who have hidden political agenda and who need to have something to divert them from congressional work they know not much of, or do not have the competence in crafting bills into passable laws.
The current blooming national issue has been a recurrent one, dating back to the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, the issue that political observers consider as the one kink in the otherwise most honorable and what would have been most credible presidency in the post martial law years. Political scientists today do not believe that Mr. Ramos had no hand in the cha-cha movement of his time. They believe that he was subtly behind the “fracas” then, in his effort to gain more years as president.
It was, of course, a legitimate desire on FVR’s part. Anyone who has tasted the near absolute power attending the Office of the President of our republic would not savor the thought of leaving the position rather abruptly, such as for only one term in office. But the Philippine Constitution is explicit in its provision that the nation’s president should enjoy one term of six years in office, and no more. Many would have wanted FVR to continue, while equally many did not want him to. And there lay the heated conflict.
The same circumstance that under-laid FVR’s cha-cha imbroglio underlies the current cha-cha issue. It is people’s suspicion of political motives and secret political plans among the proponents and the opposition that bugs the debate on how to go about with the cha-cha. The House is hell-bent on changing the charter through a constituent assembly, which means doing it among themselves in Congress. While majority of the senators favor a constitutional convention, through people-chosen representatives.
The situation in Congress would show the divergent goals and motives of the two Houses. It is obvious that majority of the members of the House have a different motivation as well as objective in their pursuit of cha-cha. That this is purely impersonal, patriotic, and nationalist could be a luscious subject for a debate. The Senate is similarly divided, with majority of its members, so the reports say, favoring a con-con. This appears to be the process that the general public is inclined to support.
As a consequence, I foresee that if the two chambers of Congress cannot put their acts together and continue to be bullheaded about their respective stands, there will never be a cha-cha. But even if the Senate will agree to the stand of the majority in the House, I still think there won’t be a cha-cha before 2004. It’s simply because the people will oppose the process, and congressmen who openly support a constituent assembly may find themselves in really deep trouble regarding their reelection in 2004.
I think the problem is that the people now have become a little more suspicious of the political motives of their politicians. While it is true that majority of the local people are still aware and conscious of political loyalties among the electorate, more and more of the rural citizenry who deeply feel the pain of our current economic condition are looking at politics as the source of the problems. And our politicians, with their obvious biased concern for their politics rather than that of the people’s, are losing these loyalties.
Rep. Raul del Mar appears to be on the right track when he recently opened himself in favor of a constitutional convention rather than a constituent assembly. I am sure that he is getting, too, the concurrence of his constituents in the north district. Many of our people believe that allowing the members of Congress to do the amending or changing of our fundamental law would merely give them the opportunity to “perpetuate” the various vested interest they represent in Congress.
Hearken to this remark by a second year college taxi driver with three children and a working wife: “Di man gyud ko motuo, sir, nga tanan natong senators ug congressmen nagbarog sa katungod sa katawhan. Una gyud nila kadtong giingon og vested interest nga ilang gibarogan sa Kongreso, una pa ang sa katawhan. Kay kanang vested interest nila, sir, kasagaran, mao god nay nagkapital sa ilang kampanya pagdagan nila. Di ba, sir?”
I was not able to comment on the remark. I did not feel, I should. In the first place, I believe it is generally true, too.
(January 24, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
