CHARTER change has always been a divisive issue. The July survey of Pulse Asia showed that those divisions continue.
The survey, based on face-to-face interviews with 1,200 respondents nationwide, showed that 44 percent of Filipinos still do not support moves to amend the Constitution. A smaller 37 percent said they believe the Constitution should be amended, while 19 percent said they were undecided.
But opposition to Charter change has actually declined from a high 49 percent in a similar survey two years ago.
These numbers gain significance against the backdrop of President Rodrigo Duterte’s determined campaign to amend the Constitution to replace today’s unitary, presidential form of government with a federal, parliamentary system.
Mr. Duterte ascended to the presidency by winning 38 percent of the popular vote. This may not sound like very much of a plurality, but in the fractured multi-party system of Philippine politics, Mr. Duterte was among the most popular presidential candidates in history, with 16,601,997 votes, surpassing his immediate predecessor, Benigno Aquino III, who won with 15,208,678 votes in 2010, and Joseph Estrada, who won with 10,722,295 votes in 1998.
Opposition to Charter change will drop further, perhaps, as Mr. Duterte lends his popularity to an information campaign to support his plan to move the country toward a federal system where far-flung provinces will no longer suffer the neglect of imperial Manila.
Still, the push to amend the Constitution will be an uphill battle, and the administration cannot afford too many missteps.
When Mr. Duterte took office, he declared his preference for a constitutional convention with elected delegates who would propose amendments to the Charter. This mode, one of three allowed by the Constitution, is widely regarded as the most representative approach to making amendments—but also the most expensive, given the cost of an election.
Mr. Duterte’s preference was reflected in a resolution filed in the House by his ally, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez.
It was Alvarez, however, who quickly corrected himself and declared that a constituent assembly made up of senators and congressmen, was now the preferred mode of amending the Constitution, because it was cheaper and more practical.
There is not much public trust in Congress, however, and those who oppose Charter change have found yet another reason to object to it. We are, after all, talking about a group of politicians who cannot even put the national good over their own parochial interests when it comes to enforcing a constitutional ban on political dynasties. Are we then to trust these same lawmakers, who could just as well remove the bothersome provision on political dynasties or tinker with their own term limits?
Speaker Alvarez’s call for the creation of a constitutional commission—composed of constitutional law experts as well as representatives from non-governmental organizations, the academe and other sectors of society—is a step in the right direction in addressing the reasonable doubt about Congress’ ability to draft a new Charter that is good for all, not just for themselves.