MANILA, 31 March 2006 — Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo yesterday strongly endorsed a public petition to change the Philippine Constitution, abolishing the two-chamber Congress in favor of a unicameral legislature.

But analysts say attempts to replace the presidential system with a parliamentary setup this year are likely to be stymied by political and legal bickering and argue that such a shift, if ever achieved, could actually increase political instability.

A Supreme Court official also warned election officials that acting on the signatures being gathered for the charter change (cha-cha) drive could be aiding an illegal act.

A non-government group calling itself “Sigaw ng Bayan” (Call of the people) has said it has gathered around 5 million of the approximately 5.2 million signatures required to hold a national vote on charter change. “The true power of the people is being felt in the signature campaign to change the government,” Arroyo told a donors’ meeting in Tagaytay city, south of Manila.

Arroyo, dogged by allegations she cheated in the 2004 election, said she wanted to put an end to “petty politics” but she faces opposition from the Senate and from groups who fear she is using charter change to postpone 2007 congressional elections.

Under Philippine laws, there were only three ways to change the constitution — convene the current two houses of Congress into a constituent assembly (con-ass), elect members to a constitutional convention (concon) and gather signatures through a people’s initiative.

Twenty-one of 23 members of the Senate, including Arroyo’s allies, have signed a resolution to oppose changing the constitution, which rules out the con-ass and concon options. Saying that the nation should not be held hostage by senators, Arroyo allies launched the signature campaign.

Enabling Law Needed

Senators have pointed out, though, that the Supreme Court in 1998 threw out a similar people’s signature campaign, ruling that the Philippines has no “enabling law” that allows such campaigns to revise certain constitutional provisions.

Supreme Court spokesman Ismael Khan yesterday said Congress, indeed, has to enact an enabling law to make the implementation of a people’s initiative, including the verification of signatures, operational.

“The present enabling law is not adequate for the purpose. There is a law but it’s just not adequate. So in effect, there is no law to make this people’s initiative effective,” Khan said in a radio interview.

Khan said, however, that it was too early to say if a people’s initiative was indeed illegal, saying it would be up to groups for and against the move to argue their respective cases.

Many groups intended to question the initiative before the highest court, Khan said. “I don’t want to preempt them because I do not know what arguments they will use. And it’s hard to comment now because the facts may be different. But for now, we see nothing wrong with collecting signatures. The question will lie in whether it is lawful to act on those signatures,” he added.

Even Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, President Arroyo’s ally, slammed the signature campaign as a divisive and useless endeavor which won’t prosper because of the lack of an enabling law. “In 1997, there was no law providing for the procedure to change the Charter by means of a people’s initiative. Up to now, there is no such law,” she said.

The case filed by her then was against the move by supporters of then President Fidel V. Ramos to amend the constitution and extend term limits of elected officials.

Confident

Jose de Venecia, the Speaker of the 236-member House of Congress, said he was confident a new unicameral parliament would be in place this year due to parallel efforts by lawmakers and people’s groups to amend the 1987 constitution. He said they were 11 signatures short of convening the two houses of Congress into a constituent assembly, referred to as “con-ass” in the media, to re-write the constitution.

But Erin Prelypchan of the Manila-based Pacific Strategies & Assessments said constitutional change in the short-term was wishful thinking. “There are too many what-ifs. Even if it did happen it would be counterproductive because a parliamentary system without strong parties would be a nightmare.

So much time would be spent forming and breaking coalitions.” Elite dynasties dominate the current US-designed system of checks and balances resulting in policy gridlock and the exclusion of tens of millions of impoverished Filipinos. Proponents of charter change say it would make it easier to topple incompetent governments legally through no-confidence motions rather than “people power” revolts, which are still attempted after Ferdinand Marcos was ousted in 1986. Arroyo has been pushing the reform since she survived an impeachment attempt last year and an alleged coup last month. But her support of the signature campaign has raised hackles among groups who want to reform the system without her help.

“The government is courting more political trouble by pushing the people’s initiative to change the constitution,” said Ramon Casiple of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reforms. “It would be the final straw that will break the carabao’s back.” (With a report from Reuters)