Bona fide Text
Why not Cha-cha?
Filipinos are in a great debate when Charter Change is the main issue. We kept on questioning Cha-cha's reliability, practicability, and above all its benefit to the Philippine system of government and the country as a whole especially in economic reforms.
The primary goal of Cha-cha authors is a shift from the practiced presidential form of government to the parliamentary form. The proposed shift to a parliamentary system means that the executive power now vested in the President and the Cabinet will be fused with the legislative power now vested in Congress. This combined power will then be wielded by a single body: Parliament. FYI, during the time of former President Marcos, our country experienced a parliamentary type of government. It was a short-lived type that changed the total picture of the political system of the Philippines for temporary basis only. It was the first time our country experienced such, however because martial law overpowered the parliamentary system, its essence was not that effective in pursuing development and progress of the country. It was an experienced parliamentary government beyond the control of a dictator ruler.
Why against Charter Change? There are seven reasons to oppose the implementation of charter change according to Dr. René B. Azurin, a faculty of University of the Philippines.
First, this fusion of executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary system means that the same set of people decide on the programs of government, appropriate the funds for these programs, and execute them. This means that the built-in control mechanism of having different units act on different parts of the same transaction is lost. Such a system is therefore more prone to abuse and corruption.
Second, the parliamentary system effectively makes the entire national budget (except for debt servicing and certain fixed expenditures) one huge pork barrel. There is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the judicial system, but that assumes that kickbacks can actually be documented.
Third, the parliamentary system enshrines "horse trading" as the way of governance. Since the government can fall at any time through a no-confidence vote, the tenure of the Prime Minister is unstable and utterly dependent on the votes of the other members of Parliament. This means that the Prime Minister will always be hostage to the demands of every member of Parliament, each one of whom represents special interests.
Fourth, it is simply not true that "legislative gridlock" is the reason why this country has not been able to keep economic pace with the high-performing economies in our region of the world. Actually, our failure to keep economic pace with our neighbors is a consequence of protectionist economic policies, peace and order problems, graft and corruption, and an ineffective justice system.
Fifth, no connection has been demonstrated between form of government and economic performance. There are countries with parliamentary governments that are racing ahead of us economically (like Malaysia and Thailand), but there are also countries with presidential systems doing as well or better (like Taiwan and South Korea).
Sixth, the argument that it is the huge campaign ‘investments’ required by a presidential candidate in a national election that gives rise to graft and corruption should be dismissed as simplistic. This ignores the fact that graft and corruption happens because of a mix of many factors including poverty, greed, the availability of opportunity, and weak law enforcement.
Seventh, in a parliamentary system, the Filipino people—already wanting in any real power —will be further deprived of the power to vote for their own national leader.
Now, charter change proponents said that their proposal is really about the reallocation of power. The question is, who will gain and who will lose? In the end, shifting to a parliamentary system would simply mean that the politicians will gain power and Juan de la Cruz will lose what little power he has.