WITH the fate of the “people’s initiative” (PI) as a mode to change the charter now hanging before the Supreme Court, it is hoped that our lawmakers and public officials, whether they are proponents of the petition or not, will go back to work - and efficiently this time. Doing otherwise would tantamount to further wasting not only official time but taxpayers’ money that could and should have been spent on government programs that are more vital and urgent than trying to change the present form of government, as if the form and not the ruler is the real problem.

        And who’s fooling whom when the people behind the expensive venture of collecting millions of voters’ signatures would call it the “people’s initiative”? Even with the “multi-sectoral” Sigaw Ng Bayan acting as main proponent of this movement, the mere fact that the “government-based Union of the Local Authorities of the Philippines” (ULAP) composed of governors, mayors and barangay officials, are virtually running the show, who will be too naive or gullible enough to believe that this attempt to change the Charter (cha-cha) is purely the initiative of the common tao? “Tell that to the marines!”

        In this country, any “initiative” that conies from or being proposed by politicians is, more often than not, subject to public suspicion or skepticism. This is partly because their breed has been noted for their having the propensity to protect their vested interests or perpetuate themselves in power at all cost.

        And if Congress’ eagerness to change the Constitution via “constituent assembly” (or convening themselves for that purpose) is anything to go by, we could as well say goodbye to any faint hope that cha-cha would ever lead into our finally getting rid of the corrupt, inept or non-performers in the officialdom. If cha-cha aims at changing the form of government, but with the president serving out her term until 2010 with “undiminished powers” and with the vice-president and “honorable” lawmakers sitting as members of an interim parliament, where’s the change for the better?

        What good will cha-cha make if we have the same kind of politicians lording it over the parliamentary show? Would changing the constitution change politicians’ outlook and greed? Would it end the fight for pork barrel? Would it do away with patronage system, political dynasties? Above all, would graft and corruption go away with the coming of the parliamentary era?

        If answers to these questions are “yes”, then let’s all dance the “cha-cha”. But, not while the Supreme Court hasn’t provide us the appropriate music yet.

        In the meantime, let our politicians start working together for the common good, if they can.



MANUEL A. COLLAO,
via e-mail