Charter Change

"No good governance can exist without a good constitution."

That quote made me realize how crucial a strong constitution is to ensure that the government operates fairly and effectively in the Philippines.

Before diving further into my blog, I’d like to clarify what Charter Change is. Simply put, the Constitution is a written set of rules that defines what the government can and cannot do, as well as its responsibilities to the people. As Civil Service Review TV aptly puts it, it serves as the government’s “rulebook.” Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state, where power ultimately rests with the people, and the government derives its authority from them.

Charter Change (or CHA-CHA) is the process of amending or revising a country's constitution. In the Philippines, it usually involves changing rules related to governance, political systems, or economic policies. Some proponents argue that it could help address problems like poverty, inequality, and political dynasties, while others advocate for shifting to a federal system to promote regional development. Charter Change can be pursued through methods like a Constituent Assembly or a Constitutional Convention, but there are concerns that it could be manipulated for personal or political gain, which I agree with.

I understand the need for change as I am deeply concerned about the qualifications and trustworthiness of those currently in power. For example, I find it troubling that someone like Apollo Quiboloy, a figure tied to sex trafficking charges, is being allowed to run for senator in 2025. It raises serious questions about the standards we hold for public office. Similarly, the fact that President Bongbong Marcos ran for president despite lacking a formal educational background further complicates my trust. How can we rely on someone to govern a nation when he openly boasts about continuing the legacy of his dictator father?

My primary concern is that many of the individuals in government today do not inspire much trust. If the Constitution were amended under their leadership, it could easily be manipulated, leading to corruption or, worse, the rise of a dictatorship. This opinion is echoed by Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in an article titled Is Charter Change Really Necessary? published by Patrick Quintos of ABS-CBN News. Monsod argued that the current Constitution already provides solutions to issues like poverty, inequality, and political dynasties, and criticized lawmakers for failing to implement essential provisions. He also warned that any new drafts of the Constitution could be revised to serve the interests of powerful political families.

In Addition, I conducted a survey asking the question: “Are you for Charter Change?” The results showed that 57.1% of respondents are somewhat familiar with the Philippine Constitution, and a significant 85% believe that this foundational "rule book" needs to be amended. However, not all are in favor. One notable response expressed concern that the Philippine government is not yet economically or politically prepared for Charter Change, warning that it could empower political dynasties and further destabilize the current system.

Overall, most respondents agree that the Constitution doesn’t need a total overhaul, but they do support targeted updates. These changes are seen as necessary to remove outdated provisions, close legal loopholes, and modernize the Constitution to better reflect current realities. Many respondents emphasized the need to improve governance, increase transparency, and prevent manipulation. Specific recommendations include clarifying the separation of church and state and raising the qualifications for political candidates to ensure capable and ethical leadership. Some also advocate for reducing U.S. influence in the document and pushing for a more localized, culturally relevant approach.

In terms of specific areas for revision, respondents highlighted key constitutional articles:

• Article II: Reinforce the separation of church and state, and impose stronger anti-corruption measures.

• Articles VI to XII: Update the qualifications and disqualifications for political leaders, especially in terms of education and professional experience.

• Articles XIV and XVI: Revisit issues related to education, culture, and national defense.

• Justice System: Streamline legal processes for faster and more accessible justice.

• Economic Policies: Revise outdated economic provisions to stimulate national growth.

• COMELEC: Strengthen electoral systems and increase accountability.

• Social Rights: Enhance protections for women, the right to healthcare and quality education, and fair taxation.

When asked whether these changes would help the country develop faster, the majority of respondents agreed. They believe Charter Change could foster a stronger sense of nationalism, create more opportunities for Filipinos, and improve government performance. Education and leadership qualifications were highlighted as crucial factors in crafting policies that align with the country’s current and future needs. Some also stressed the importance of better management of public funds, especially tax money. However, one respondent offered a contrasting view, arguing that development relies more on aligning government actions with the welfare of the people, rather than on changing the Constitution itself.

Despite the potential benefits, respondents also identified several risks associated with amending the Constitution. A major concern is the enactment of self-serving provisions that benefit those in power. There's also apprehension that those tasked with the revisions may lack the expertise and impartiality required, potentially leading to biased or flawed amendments. Public resistance could arise, possibly triggering unrest similar to past People Power movements, especially if the reforms are perceived as unjust. Other risks include abuse of power, forgery of credentials, lack of institutional oversight (particularly in DEPED and CHED), and imbalanced changes that might benefit only the elite, worsening social inequality. In summary, while there is strong support for updating the Constitution to address modern challenges and improve governance, the process must be approached with caution, transparency, and genuine public interest at its core.

In conclusion, I believe that any change to our constitution should only occur if those responsible for rewriting it are trustworthy, to prevent personal gain or the creation of rules that don't align with our values. This can only be achieved by electing the right leaders who prioritize good governance and the welfare of the people. 

Change starts with us first.