Home 
In 2006, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s minions launched a rather crude people’s initiative for a shift to a parliamentary form of government. This was, however, rejected by the Supreme Court as a “gigantic fraud” on our people. Now, her surrogates are going for it again via the constituent assembly. The parliamentary objective is the same, but the mode to achieve it has changed.
If the parliamentary Cha-cha (Charter change) succeeds, the election in May 2010 would no longer be held to choose GMA’s successor as ordained by the present Constitution but to elect members of Parliament under the revised Charter. GMA would run for a parliamentary seat in Pampanga and then become prime minister.
Overzealous supporters may even include a Cha-cha provision canceling the 2010 elections altogether and naming simply all the present national officials (president, vice president, senators and representatives) as members of an Interim Parliament. This subterfuge would assure GMA’s continuous reign without need of any election, whether national or local. Also, this no-election scenario will ensure the enthusiastic support of local officials who will themselves remain in office.
Debating and explaining both federalism (to accommodate the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)) and parliamentarism (to extend GMA’s reign) would be complicated, confusing and time-consuming. Lawyers and political scientists know that these two concepts have many variations and ramifications that could indefinitely delay the Cha-cha.
True, federalism has many advantages. But it is equally true that the many federated states (like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, Malaysia, etc.) do not practice it uniformly. Neither is there a single parliamentary model. The parliamentary system in Great Britain is different from that in France, Italy and Japan. Given that GMA wants the Cha-cha to be completed before her term expires, there is simply no time for long, simultaneous debates on both federalism and parliamentarism.
Also, the MOA-AD is so riddled with incredible flaws that it would be more difficult to sell it to our people than the parliamentary shift. The parliamentary Cha-cha merely seeks to alter the form of our government, but the MOA-AD proposes to dismember our territorial integrity and to scuttle our country’s sovereignty. Again, while the MOA-AD may be useful to revive the Cha-cha, it cannot last long as the reason for it. Hence, the federalism ploy would soon be dropped by GMA to focus on the Cha-cha’s parliamentary centerpiece.
Let us all face this monumental battle squarely. Abandon the pretension, double talk and deception. There is only one real goal for Charter change: to extend GMA’s reign beyond June 30, 2010. Let those who favor it be transparent. Let them remove their gloves. Let the oppositors bare their knuckles. And let the real Cha-cha bout begin. — Artemio Panganiban, Inquirer
