I      Introduction Perhaps a good starting point for an update on Charter Change will begin with the advent of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the political stage. Many of us gathered today have been clamoring for reforms for many years and each has tried to advance our advocacies in the political dialogue – from political reforms, restructuring our society to championing sustainable development.
Some common denominators have emerged in the recent past, no doubt influenced too by our close relationship and cooperation with KAF. Federalism and Parliamentary government are two advocacies which we share in common with KAF. We have countless permutations but the overarching commonality is that these systems are more conducive for building better and lasting institutions for good governance.

II    Defective 1987 Constitution  Charter Change is not a new issue. Past Philippine administrations have attempted the same during their respective time, Ramos’ PIRMA and Estrada’s CONCORD. All have failed at the outset. The current success in bringing the issue to the mainstream is not a political fluke either.

All these started after the fall of the Estrada Administration through EDSA DOS. EDSA I put in place the 1987 Cory Constitution which was reactionary at best. It was written at a time when fresh wounds brought about by a dictatorship were still open. The document sought to repudiate the Martial Law experience but also incorporated inward looking economic provisions.

The structure of the basic charter itself was as wordy and detailed as to preclude anticipating generational changes in socio-political-economic realities.
The economic provisions failed to consider the growing globalization of relationships, modes of doing business, advances in technology and the penetrating influence of information.

III   Federalist Arrangement with GMA To advance its advocacy, the CMFP sought out a dialogue with the four major presidential candidates in 2003. Candidate Raul Roco, the logical person most NGO’s were comfortable with rejected outright the concept of Federalism. Candidates Fernando Poe and Lacson were lukewarm to the idea.
Only Candidate Macapagal-Arroyo with her “anecdotal understanding” of Federalism staked her candidacy on Charter Change. This lead to CMFP supporting her candidacy under the apt slogan of GO FEDERAL ! GO GLORIA !

IV   The Great Debate The Charter Change issue was put on hold in 2004 for government to concentrate on the enactment of VAT and other economic provisions.
Meanwhile dialogues were conducted with parallel initiatives for the Parliamentarians to effect a Parliamentary Gov’t, led by Joe de Venecia and Congress and Fidel V Ramos. This culminated in an agreement by JDV and CMFP for joint efforts pushing Charter Change including the economic liberalization hammered out with KAF as facilitator.
GMA’s SONA of July 2005 positioned Charter Change in the mainstream of political discourse and she initiated a series of decisions to sustain the debate.
She formed the Consultative Commission to propose changes to the 1987 Constitution and to advise her and Congress on these amendments.
Consultations, workshops and public hearings were conducted nationwide to feel the pulse of the people. By middle of December, 2005, the Concom’s work was finished and its work submitted to GMA, who endorsed the same to the lower house. 

V    The Question of GMA’s Electoral Legitimacy and the Senate’s Recalcitrance. This talk will not attempt to decipher the arguments on both sides of the question on GMA’s legitimacy. This update will simply state the events leading towards the current difficulties encountered in the drive to change the charter.
The Senate’s hostile attitude to Charter Change negated the two constitutionally mandated mode of changing the Philippine Constitution (Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly).

This lead to the third modality, the People’s Initiative

VI  People’s Initiative Since its inception by close to 200 NGOs, sectoral groups,    private organizations, civic clubs, homeowners associations and even local gov’t executives, almost 9 million signatures have been collected and a substantial number verified by Comelec. Petitions to Comelec will be initiated later in the year and this will trigger a suit that may bring this all the way to the Supreme Court.

VII  Ramifications - If the proponents win their case, a plebiscite most likely will be conducted before the end of this year. A yes vote will establish an Interim Unicameral Parliamentary form of Government. - Losing the Supreme Court case will most likely set back Charter Change for another decade. The 2007 elections will refocus the agenda on the Senatorial and eventually the 2010 presidential derby. - The current proposal of the Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee for a Legislated Charter Change is a delaying tactic that will push back Charter Change to square 1. It is also a play for the mass audience as the Senate is now perceived as having been isolated by the PI. - We will now have more senators following the lead of Sen. Santiago breaking ranks from the mainstream Senate position – but not quite a total breakout, as the conditionalities of the Senator simply pass on the onus to the Supreme Court (Congress voting separately or as one) - The next big hurdle is in the text of the plebiscite to be presented to the electorate. There is no iron clad guarantee as yet that the rest of the constitutional revisions will be enacted – devolution of powers, authority and resources of the national government to autonomous regions in the transition to a Federal Republic; and the removal of the restrictions on foreign participation in the national economy and other progressive reforms.