Donna Mae Alaga 
Brimming with pride, Senator Robinhood “Robin” Padilla filed Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 5 last Wednesday, December 13, which encompasses expanded service for senators and other revisions in the Philippines’ legislative and executive pillars.
Despite countless trials, predators are not yet tired of pursuing absolute power as clamor transpires once again on the topic of charter change, colloquially known as Cha-cha. Are the beats they orchestrated this time enough to sway the public opinion in favor of charter change?
But before we go cuckoo of the intimidating terminologies used in such documents, that would likely hamper our judgment whether to support such politically motivated changes, let us unpack some of the oft-repeated terminologies and their hidden ramifications.
Political synchronization
One of the by-products when the resolution commenced its effect in the constitution, is the synchronization of electoral cycles. Introductory elections of officials under such revision will occur on the second Monday of May 2028 according to its author. Though this may create less hassle in the turnover of projects due to the “simultaneous” occurrence of elections, this does not guarantee that involved projects will continue under a different official, public works for instance.
Notably, proposed amendments did not hold the outgoing officials accountable for any unfinished outcomes of political projects. Voluntary renunciation in addendum would further exacerbate this helpless situation when elected officials abandon their position. This cooccurrence in electoral cycles is inane and does not solve urgent issues at hand.
Stable leadership
Leadership stability is expected to bear fruit when such amendments apply. Said changes anticipate that elected leaders know what to do next since they have the freedom to continue what they have started in their political terms. However, the cornerstone of leadership does not only rely on knowing exactly what to do – it also requires leaders to dynamically adapt to the dynamic needs of the time instead of developing a fixed mindset in dealing with the predicaments embedded in their roles as leaders. A term of four years (eight in total due to a maximum of two terms) for president and vice president might seem enough to achieve such stability but things could go worse if we dealt with the wrong cards – we elected officials who are only after ultimate power instead of authentic & genuine service.
Continuous democracy
Democratic continuity is expected to be fostered in the presence of such revisions with a total of 54 senators, 24 of which will be elected at large while 30 will be elected by each legislative region. This overhauling may have weaved democracy too far from its initial purpose. This novel system of separation of powers might aggravate the existing policy-making processes instead of achieving political efficiency. Though the survey of OCTA Research group last August showed a small majority of Filipino were satisfied of the performance of The Senate, increasing their number has not been clearly supported in the said proposition.
In their end of accumulating sympathy, such revisions urge the formation of unitary personalities in government positions through joint candidacy of prospective president and vice president.
This plotline seems to show the dragon has already caught its tail – a story to cover up their strategic agenda of achieving an authoritarian form of government – a political landscape for political dynasties and elite classes to further grow and overtake each facet of our society. This will also prohibit diversity in political voices since lone political party’s ideals and agenda will potentially dominate the executive positions.
Instead of seeking a government where officials lead with uninterrupted years, our policymakers should have focused more on strengthening our anti-political dynasty efforts alongside painstakingly working on the ongoing dilemmas our marginalized sectors are already going through.
Such an attempt at swaying Filipinos’ opinion on charter change by exploiting our long-overdue need for sustainable leadership with long-term impacts, was not convincing at all. Guised as increased opportunities to serve, lies political entrenchment at its inception – a crystallization of political processes which could severely harden existing social oppression.
Unless we stop educating ourselves about the populistic ideas our officials have been filling into the public masses, their self-interest will linger still in their facade of pro-democracy efforts.
The gift, that tops the wishlist of power-hungry officials, has already been unboxed before we send it to the rightful recipient. With all these in mind, is it worth wrapping up this giving season?
