There is once again the challenge to Charter Change avidly and forcefully hurled to the people. While millions want nothing to do with it, there are still many who made the option to respond to it. In substance, they say “No to Charter Change!” Not now. Not how it is initiated nor how it is proposed to be done.
While many people have many reasons to object, all of these nevertheless have basically the same composite over-all rationale: the persisting and irritating question of the legitimacy of the Malacañang occupant, the dubious motive and devious objective of those relentlessly pushing for the change, the interesting hurry to have the change no matter the cost to social understanding and harmony.
It is interesting to note that all previous Malacañang occupants sworn to office according to the 1987 Constitution, wanted this changed for these and those reasons. And all of them failed. Now, the present Malacañang occupant wants to do the same. And there are marked indications that the change will not happen—not the way the change is to be made nor the particular changes to be done.
It is both funny and distressing that all previous and present administrations infallibly place the blame on the 1987 Constitution for their own failures and shortcomings in governance. They made wonderful promises before the elections. They fail to fulfill them. The culprit conveniently pointed is one and the same: the 1987 Constitution. The remedy is also one and the same: change it!
It is ideal to have a good government structure filled and ran by good government officials. It is enough to have good government official serving through an imperfect government structure. But even a perfect government structure is no match for corrupt and inept government officials. In the same way, a great car is a waste for a bad driver. A palatial house is a shame when occupied by ruthless and shameless people.
If something is considered as really “fundamental” like the Philippine Constitution, it is a cause for wonderment why and how could it be changed at will if it is just a matter of changing for cause some house rules, certain norms of deportment and the like, this is understandable. But for every administration desirous and designing to change the fundamental law of the land, this is curious—to say the least.
24 May 2996