Divisiveness not needed

Despite all the resources poured into what is referred to as education and information campaigns and incentives to local officials, tinkering with the Constitution remains a divisive issue that is usually destined to fail.

The thrust is indeed divisive and results in the government’s attention being diverted from the urgent issues facing the nation.

The division wrought by Charter change, or Cha-cha, campaigns was evident in the first serious movement under the late President Fidel V. Ramos that created friction between him and Cory Aquino, his predecessor.

Cory then wanted Ramos to order a halt to the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action, or PIRMA, a group that led a signature campaign similar to the recent nationwide People’s Initiative drive.

Ramos was suspected of being behind PIRMA since its leading figures, then-Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office chairperson Tomas Morato, columnist Carmen Navarro Pedrosa, and her husband, former Ambassador Alberto Pedrosa, were his allies.

Cory met with Ramos at the residence of Spirit of EDSA Movement founding chairman Christopher Carrion in Ayala Alabang Village over the Cha-cha campaign, ten years after the 1987 Charter that others called the Cory Constitution took effect.

Cory came out of the meeting utterly disappointed after Ramos told her that he could not stop the signature movement. FVR explained that stopping the initiative would violate the people’s right to freedom of expression.

“It’s a right that I am bound to uphold,” Ramos stood his ground.

“As the President who is responsible for the well-being of the people and our national interest, I will not curtail the right of the people to know what the important issues are regarding the 1987 Constitution,” FVR lectured Cory.

What transpired after was Cory leading mass protests against amending the Constitution.

Shortly after, the Supreme Court voted 14-0 to disallow the PIRMA petition as a mode for changing the Constitution.

The High Tribunal said there was no enabling law on the PI. On 10 June 1997, the SC rejected a motion for reconsideration and dismissed with finality PIRMA’s effort.

On 14 June 1997, the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council, or LEDAC, crafted a bill on the PI to provide the cure that the tribunal had requested in the campaign.

The move, again suspected of sprouting in Malacañang, fueled bigger protests against Cha-cha.

A 2006 repeat of the attempt to Cha-cha was no less politically tumultuous, resulting in an admission by the Palace that it was funding the movement in the guise of an education and information campaign on constitutional reform.

Ignacio Bunye, then the presidential spokesperson, had a hard time justifying the spending by his office for Cha-cha, calling it an “advocacy fund.”

Sigaw ng Bayan, PIRMA’s counterpart in the new campaign, brandished the support of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, or ULAP, for the PI.

When the so-called Hyatt 10, or ten Cabinet secretaries, resigned at the height of the “Hello Garci” election fraud scandal, the Cha-cha move suddenly started making many believe it was a smokescreen.

The SC returned to the 1997 ruling to reject the PI movement of “Sigaw ng Bayan,” saying that it lacked merit as a legitimate and spontaneous effort by the people.

With the raft of external and internal problems that the nation faces, another source of divisiveness similar to that spawned by the past Cha-cha campaigns is the last thing that the government needs.

Without fail, whatever good intentions were given and explained, the Cha-cha push of the past was always associated with the lust for term extension.