As I have explained in an interview, regardless as to who is President, if charter change is pursued, I will participate. I will participate every step of the way, participating in discussions, lending whatever I can offer given the so many years I have been involved in advocating for systemic reforms. Constitutional reform is systemic reform, as it is the Constitution that sets and give shape to a country’s political system, which is the single most important reason why we should revise the charter.

Right now, we just don’t have a system. We don’t have a system that prepares and chooses the right leaders. We don’t have a system of electing those who are prepared and or have experience in at least running an organization or office. We don’t have a system that hold our leaders accountable for their actions and inactions while in office. Most of all, we don’t have a system that actively and meaningfully enjoin our people to participate other than going to the voting booth every election.

As a result, our public institutions have been wanting the whole time, that we always complain and find it difficult to pay our taxes as we don’t readily see where our hardly earned money goes to. Yet, we have been a republic for more than a century now that going by the development of other countries, we should have already been able to evolve our public institutions by now; develop a system that is appropriate to our conditions, our context and history.

All we have are political personalities, political families simply taking turns in ruling, even (sorry to say) pillaging the country while demonizing opposing political personalities, which in the final analysis, each is capable of good and yet also capable of bad. This of course is part and parcel of leadership and governance, except that there has to be accountability, one thing that as mentioned in the foregoing, we sadly do not have. Because of that, there is not much incentive in doing good while in office, while there is so much incentive in not doing good, wittingly or unwittingly.

The foremost question then is how we can break from this impasse. How can we finally get out of the trap of an archaic political setup. With the so many attempts at pursuing constitutional reform I have seen; I’m convinced there are a lot more people now who understand how fundamental it is to change the system. It is proven to be really rather difficult to get to this point considering the current setup has auspiciously tied the hands of advocates from making any successful move. So, it is also the very political setup (it cannot be called political system), the one that we have been wanting to change that, by some bizarre happenstance, prevents any change.

It is not the people, definitely not the nature of our people, even of our leaders that is the problem. We have seen so many great leaders but could not just do enough to change the situation in the country. It is not the culture that is a problem, it is the system that makes us behave in a way that we ourselves would not want to. Culture and behavior are two different things, and it is not only the study of psychology and sociology that tells you this, it is by making simple observations that will lead you to understand it.

Look around you and you’ll know how far we have become as a country, as a nation, as a people. Other than poverty, I’m inclined to think that we are much better off, especially in treating each other, in being more “civilized,” tolerant of other people, especially in terms of religion and or ethnicity compared to other countries. Of course, there will be those who’d immediately disagree. Hopefully though these opposition have enough comparative basis, having seen enough outside the country.

Naysayers will also cite the so-called “crab mentality”, but this is arguably not the same for everyone, definitely not our culture as it is also true in other countries. For some reason, when one experiences it, immediately the assumption is it is in our culture. Still and all, have we seen how our countrymen behave when they are abroad? Have you asked why many Filipinos manage to be successful abroad? As I have always been using as example, have we noticed how motorists behave the moment they get to Clark and or Subic? This is not even outside the country but you could instantly see a change in behavior in people. Immediately, people behave differently when they find themselves in a new environment that prompts them to behave in a certain way.

On the contrary, we have been known everywhere to be warm, welcoming and especially for our compatriots forging their future abroad, a lot reliable compared to other people at the workplace. When in the right environment, which can only be provided by the right system, people will behave accordingly, that the “real” culture will come out naturally. In short, if what is inherent is the question, there is so much to cite as evidence that as a people, we in fact have a good sense of what is right and wrong. It is not the culture, nor it is because we are divided or even divisive that we have the current, considerably wanting politics and governance.

Not everything you’ll see in other countries is to be envied. The “only in the Philippines” saying is overrated. There is no argument that we have so much to complain about, from infrastructure, to food and education. These are issues of system or lack of it, an issue which is very much also true in other countries. There are in fact countries, even in Europe which are comparable to the Philippines when it comes to these problems; yes, including problems in governance. It doesn’t mean however that because others have problems like ours, that we just have to be satisfied with what we have. Precisely why we need to change the constitution because we need to change the current setup and put in place a system we should’ve had a long time ago.

The thing is, the good sense of our people, believe it or not is reflected in our politics, except that because of the current setup that certainly is not a system, it is limited to choosing between political personalities. In our desperation to look for what is good (and believe me, the people are getting themselves informed with whatever limited information they are able to gather in the media, whether these are part of a propaganda or not, information is sought and processed), whether in principle or in kind, because the choices given us is limited to personalities and not to programs and or principles represented by political parties, we tend to equate, identify what we believe to be good with political personalities.

This may be good in a sense; what Max Weber refer to as charisma. We have seen though, especially recently, that when this belief in a person is damaged, the person that used to enjoy the people’s support will find it difficult to make a comeback. It will take time, and likely will depend on the success or failure of the one who takes the place of favor, which precisely is the same vicious circle we seem to have been cursed to.

Breaking this vicious circle is the coup de grâce needed to finally realize constitutional reform. And there had been so many attempts to do so, even as early as 1965 by no less than the late statesman Claro M. Recto, who curiously played a significant role in the drafting of the 1935 Commonwealth constitution. The very person who drafted the original constitution realized that there is a problem with the setup that was put in place then. Still, we are not able to do it precisely because everything is subject to the same vicious circle of weighing political issues on the basis of political personalities.

Those who supported constitutional reform before with previous administrations, would likely not support it now because the ones involved, the current leaders in government, are no longer those they support. Of course, pursuing change is a trust issue. It would be difficult to convince the people to support if they do not trust those who are leading the change. Come to think of it, those who used to lead the call for change experienced the same exact impasse, that the leaders they trust were not trusted by the other people.

The problem however is no change would be possible without involving the leaders, whoever is the leader at any given moment or term of office. That is what is provided for in the constitution, which likely is provided in any constitution in any country. Changing it would have to follow a process that can only be undertaken with incumbent leaders. It is thus not right to say, you wouldn’t want to support change because you don’t trust the leaders. There will never be leaders who will be supported by everyone.

This is the very reason why I have been saying, I will always participate in any effort to change the constitution. If the leaders are involved, that means the process can be advanced; it is an opportunity that we have to grab as precisely, incumbent leaders have to be involved. It is an opportunity, a rare one in fact, because what is to be changed will affect the leaders themselves, there will be change in the rules of the game, the political game as they say, which is not easy to consider if you are already a leader yourself.

The fact that one is already a leader, it only means the current setup is something they are already familiar with, that they have already benefitted from and therefore may not be inclined to change. Changing the rules of the game means they have to also change strategy, the means to remain as leaders under a different setup or political system. So, when change is sought by leaders, we should grab to opportunity and take part in it ourselves.

You have to participate because you are, we are, the most important factor in the equation of change. Leaders have to be involved, yes, because they have to start the whole process. The completion of the process on the other hand requires the participation of the people. This participation is not and cannot be limited only in the voting booth when finally, the plebiscite comes. Participation starts in the public discourse as we debate on what provisions to be revised. We have to make our voices heard, vigilantly play our role in the whole process which culminates in voting for or against during the plebiscite.

It does not matter if the leaders involved are not the leaders you are supporting. After all, they cannot change it by themselves, without involving the people. Even if you say that your involvement is not much, the whole process still requires it; and that involvement also depends on how much and what kind of involvement you would like it to be.

We are still a long way from there though. What is being asked in the People’s Initiative (PI) is not yet the revision that many naysayers have started to proclaim in the media. In the first place, I don’t think revising the constitution can be done via PI; it can only be resorted to for an amendment, or changing a single or limited provision in the constitution. The way I understand it, what is being asked is if one favors both Houses of Congress voting jointly or separately, a provision that is quite strange in the constitution.

If you are to study the history or the story of the drafting of the 1987 Constitution, the original draft provided only a single chamber of legislature. This is similar to the Commonwealth constitution as it only provided for a House of Representatives. The Senate was created only later when then President Manuel Quezon wanted to run for a second term. Lamentably, when the 1986 Constitutional Commission decided at the last minute to keep the Senate, the provisions whether both Houses are to vote separately or jointly were left as is or uncorrected. This has become an important issue especially if we are to successfully revise the constitution.

There is nothing just yet that says term limits will be lifted, or that incumbent elected leaders’ terms will be extended, or that delegates to Constitutional Convention will be paid 10 thousand pesos per day each et cetera et cetera. Issues relative to the convening of a Constitutional Convention or Assembly will be deliberated by both Houses of Congress. Particular provisions to be drafted in the new constitution on the other hand are to be discussed by the constitutional body that will eventually be created by both Houses of Congress as mentioned in the foregoing. I couldn’t help but wonder then where all these lose talk is coming from, demonizing constitutional reform before it could even start. I can only surmise that those who are already happy with how things are, are sabotaging it at the outset.

We should note that all attempts to change the constitution before died at the Senate or were preempted by the Senate. This is the reason why the question being asked by the PI is fundamental. Then again, the whole process should stand scrutiny. If there are reports of indiscretion or failure to adequately inform the public who are asked to sign, then these have to be properly documented and reported to the poll body. Let the public know of the lapses in process but these should also be pursued officially and not only limited to accusations that in the process, the public is involved and empowered. Otherwise, it is pure and simple misinformation or that ultimately it is a failure to act in the interest of the people, in ensuring that the process follows what is provided by law.