Have the “people’s initiative” promoters readied themselves to face the music? People desired to get — to no avail — key information and a clear explanation of the proposed charter change from the outset. If indeed it is the beginning, people have braced for fresh opposition. They are already sensing deceptive tactics from PIRMA’s action this early 2024. How can we focus on our national priorities with cha-cha proponents’ simplistic, illogical worldview?

The 1987 Constitution is clear: The people’s initiative can only propose simple amendments or tweak specific provisions. Term limits, unicameralism, and foreign ownership are considered major changes, so the proponents should stop changing them. 

To diminish the odds of being taken advantage of while conversing with PIRMA paper-pushers, ordinary people should not accept, but rather question the reported buyout of P100.00 in exchange for their signatures in the “petition” calling to amend the charter. PIRMA National Convenor Noel Oñate did not want to call it a petition while his colleagues were calling it that way. There is reason to believe that the ongoing signature campaign is invalid as it was and is acquired through deception. While it may be true that personalities belonging to PIRMA are ready to face the music, political observers hear different tunes from them. Media interviews are not too many, but PIRMA bigwigs contradict each other when studied comparatively.

A controversial TV advertisement has put the spotlight on them. Their freedoms have been expressed in the ad. Fine. Puno naman ito ng paninira. The ad’s demonizing of EDSA is simply unacceptable. It defeats the purpose of constitutional reform calls. The concept of the Filipino term “etsapuwera” (excluded) is used in the well-funded commercial, part of which is: “Pangako nila pagsulong pero sa pagbuo ng 1987 Constitution, na-Edsa-pwera tayo.”

We were not left out.

The Official Gazette rightly put it: “During those momentous four days of February 1986, millions of Filipinos, along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Metro Manila, and in cities all over the country, showed exemplary courage and stood against, and peacefully overthrew, the dictatorial regime of President Ferdinand E. Marcos.”

People need to listen to Christian Monsod no less as he was one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.  Citing studies, he said that the utter lack of foreign investments is due to the significant problem of corruption in the government and greed from the business side. There are family-owned conglomerates that dominate the economic and political landscape as documented and studied here and abroad. He recounted that the Philippines was not the first or second, but only the fourth destination for Japanese companies that left China and moved to other Southeast Asian countries, without reasoning out that the Philippine charter had to be fixed.

The feisty Leila de Lima, one of the leading figures of the opposition these days, described the TV ad as “trash” and “a subtle continued attempt at historical revisionism.”

The former senator stated: “This is once again an attempt to muddle facts with relentless lies and false content just to pursue their selfish interests and political agenda. Malinaw ang pakay: Lalo pang lasunin ang diwa ng EDSA habang isinusulong ang charter change… (Those cast aside after the EDSA uprising) ang diktador at ang kanyang pamahalaang tadtad ng katiwalian at pang-aabuso.”

Based on the Official Gazette records, we had former constitutions, namely: the 1986 Freedom Constitution; the 1973 Constitution: as amended on October 16-17, 1976, on January 30, 1980, and on April 7, 1981; the 1943 Constitution: as approved by the Preparatory Committee on Philippine Independence, September 4, 1943 and ratified by the KALIBAPI Convention, September 7, 1943; the 1935 Constitution: as amended on June 18, 1940, and on March 11,  1947; the Jones Law of 1916: enacted into law by the United States Congress on August 29, 1916; the Philippine Organic Act of 1902: enacted into law by the United States Congress on July 1, 1902; and the 1899 Malolos Constitution (some details omitted).

The present charter was a product of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The draft Constitution was sent to the people for their judgment on February 2, 1987, and they ratified it by 16,622,111 affirmative votes while there were 4,953,375 negative votes (representing only 22 percent of the total votes cast).

On the 30^th anniversary of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution in 2017, the then chief justice said: “(It) also provided rich and fertile ground for the rule of law to be nourished, to grow, and to bear fruit. This it did with a renewed focus on human rights and civil liberties, an emphasis on sovereignty, and institutional protection for the independence of the judiciary.” She added that the charter “acknowledges cultural and religious diversity but stresses unity, nourishes liberty but allows dissent, protects national security but emphasizes human rights and human dignity may allow us to have a government that is stable, a democracy that is vibrant, and a rule of law that is consistent.”

Merong hindi patas sa Saligang Batas?

The one-sided are the trapos (traditional politicians). PIRMA or People’s Initiative for Reform Modernization and Action (PIRMA) is just a name. Constitutional reforms need proper timing which is not now – unfortunately. Fortunately, a social justice provision of the 1987 Constitution keeps Filipinos up and about. Section 10 (Article 2) says it perfectly: “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.” If we can hardly implement it, we should at least continue to detect the hidden political agenda.