From the News! – Your Daily News

Jess Diaz and Delon Porcalla
Philippine Star

MANILA – President Arroyo’s allies at the House of Representatives aim to amend the Constitution next year and shift to a parliamentary system of government before the 2010 elections.

They insist that the House, acting as a constituent assembly, can approve proposed amendments to the Constitution by a three-fourths vote of all its members without the Senate.

The Constitution does not require three-fourths vote of the Senate and three-fourths vote of the House for the approval of constitutional amendments, according to Mrs. Arroyo’s allies. This view is expected to be challenged before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, 23 House members, mostly from the 28-member opposition bloc, filed yesterday a resolution seeking to counter the move of pro-administration lawmakers to introduce amendments to the Constitution.

The main authors of House Resolution 888 are Representatives Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna, Liza Maza and Luz Ilagan of Gabriela and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis.

Joining them were former speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and Representatives Cynthia Villar of Las Piñas, Edno Joson of Nueva Ecija and Carlos Padilla of Nueva Vizcaya.

Other lawmakers supporting their cause come from parties affiliated with the pro-administration Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats.

Resolution 888 aims to reject any and all moves to amend the Constitution before the 2010 elections including the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly.

However, Speaker Prospero Nograles said any move to amend the Constitution does not include term extensions of incumbent elective officials, particularly President Arroyo.

“We will never countenance a mockery of our people’s will,” he said.

“It is also the overwhelming sentiment of the dominant Lakas-CMD and its allies in the majority coalition to shun term extension of incumbent public officials under the guise of constitutional reforms.”

Nograles sits as president of Lakas-CMD, replacing De Venecia.

Nograles said some political have persistently employed disinformation and fear campaigns to thwart opportunities for reforms.

“Under my watch, the primary precondition for any move to amend the Constitution is to exclude any proposal to extend the term of elective officials. If we want Cha-cha, we should do it for the right reasons,” he said.

Nograles said he advocates a continuing public consultation on the matter of public governance and constitutional reforms.

“We’ll surely listen to the true sentiment of our constituents,” he said.

“I will never join anyone, if any would, in presiding over the death of our democracy. Procrastination is the venom of that kills opportunities to make things better for the country.”

Meanwhile, Sorsogon Rep. Jose Solis, Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino spokesman, said yesterday Mrs. Arroyo’s allies plan to complete the process of amending the Constitution next year.

“We hope this is finished next year so that we can have elections in 2010 not for president but for membership in parliament,” he said.

Speaking at the Serye Café’ news forum in Quezon City, Solis said more than 150 House members have already signed the Kampi resolution calling on the Senate and the House to convene as a constituent assembly.

“I am one of those who signed it,” he said.

The resolution’s principal authors are Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte, Kampi president, and Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia.

Over the weekend, Isabela Rep. Rodolfo Albano III, spokesman for the group behind the newest Cha-cha initiative, said Mrs. Arroyo would be qualified to run for parliament after the nation shifts to the parliamentary system.

“We are against term extension, but if the 2010 elections would be for membership in parliament, the President should be qualified to run,” he said.

“If she wins in her district, she can seek the position of prime minister, who will be elected by parliament.”

Mrs. Arroyo’s allies aim to obtain 198 to 200 signatures to bypass the Senate when the House convenes as a constituent assembly.

That number represents three-fourths of the combined membership of the Senate and the House.

Senate minority wary of Cha-cha

Senators from the minority are wary about a Malacañang move to speed up Charter change.

They urged Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and the majority to come out with a categorical stand against Cha-cha and moves to extend the term of Mrs. Arroyo.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano challenged the majority to issue a “very strong categorical statement” on Cha-cha.

“I believe in the integrity of Senator Enrile, our Senate president,” Cayetano said, adding the law would not just be flouted and that the people are now waiting for “a very strong and categorical statement from the Senate” as an institution that it would not allow Cha-cha before June 30, 2010.

Cayetano said once the parliamentary system is in place a prime minister would assume office and there will be no term limits for members of the new Parliament.

“Even the one year extension is deceptive,” he said.

Sen. Manuel Villar said the Supreme Court remains the “court of last resort” pertaining to Charter change moves, particularly on the voting provisions.

“There are so many legal questions which may be raised in the near future,” he said.

“We know that they have plans at the lower house wherein they want to act (in favor of Cha-cha) on their own. They are lucky if there will be some senators who will join.”

Enrile said the Senate, with its present composition, cannot move to amend the Constitution.

“To amend the Constitution at this time, with the present composition of the Senate and the attitude of each senator that I know, especially those in the old minority and they are now fused with some members of the old majority in the Senate, it is impossible to propose, to approve any proposal to amend the Constitution because you need 18of the senators,” he said.

Enrile rejected Cayetano’s call for the Senate to come up with a resolution to clarify its official stand against Cha-cha.

“If they want to do that, I have no objection,” he said.

“Anybody can file a resolution. But there’s no need. I don’t think Villar will vote in favor of any Charter change.

“The two Cayetanos. I don’t know the minority leader because he’s an advocate of federalism.”

Enrile said he does not know the position of Sen. Joker Arroyo, who is allied with the administration, but that Senators Francis Pangilinan and Noynoy Aquino would oppose moves to amend the Constitution, along with majority Senators Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Roxas and Rodolfo Biazon.

“I do not know about Senator Arroyo,” he said.

“I’m sure Kiko Pangilinan will go against it so apat na yun. And then you have Lacson, Legarda, Madrigal, Aquino, Roxas and Biazon.

“All of these people, in my reading, will not vote in favor in Cha-cha. That’s why I’m telling you that based on my assessment of the Senate, it is impossible to approve, to get 18 senators to approve any proposal to amend the Constitution.”

Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri downplayed speculations that Cha-cha is a top priority of the Senate.

“It’s not in our priority agenda,” he said.

“We’d like to warn our colleagues in the House not to do it alone because the sense of a bicameral or legislative body of the country is in the Constitution. They cannot do it alone.”

MBC bucks Cha-cha

The Makati Business Club (MBC) opposes plans to amend the Constitution to extend President Arroyo’s stay in power.

In a statement, the group said it is against any move to postpone the 2010 elections.

“The world is experiencing the worst financial crisis in decades and the Philippines will not be spared the ill effects of this crisis,” read the statement.

“The full extent of the negative impact on our economy has yet to unfold. Given such circumstances, what the country needs at this time is certainly not the haphazard change of the fundamental law but a strong and credible leadership that enjoys the support of the Filipino people.”

The MBC said Mrs. Arroyo no longer has the support and confidence of a majority of Filipinos, not only because she continues to serve under a dubious mandate, but for the corruption scandals that have marked her administration.

“The Filipino people look forward to national renewal through general elections in 2010,” read the statement.

“We see the 2010 elections as the means by which we will elect leaders who will lead our country, hopefully with new vision and proven integrity, toward progress and a better life.”

The MBC said any attempt to cancel the 2010 national elections would be met with the strongest opposition from all sectors of Philippine society.

“Such a subversion of the people’s will would render our nation demoralized, at a time when we need to be strong to face the serious challenges ahead of us,” read the statement.

“The Makati Business Club, in concert with other key sectors and the vast majority of the Filipino people, will do all we can to assure that the 2010 elections take place.”

— With Perseus Echeminada, Christina Mendez, Michael Punongbayan

Fernando Fajardo
Cebu Daily News

In last week’s forum in Manila of the National Competitiveness Council, Trade Secretary Peter Favila was reported to have told industry leaders and local government executives that restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution must be amended to erase biases against foreign investors. Accordingly, one such restrictive provision is the ownership of land that is limited to Filipinos. Agree or disagree?

The news report citing this issue written by Max de Leon for Business Mirror was circulated by email in Cebu among the members of Cebu Business Club and other concerned business people in Cebu. It interesting to see what they had to say about the issue. Gordon Alan Joseph said only a few words when he e-mailed the news item to his friends in business: Please let somebody inform him (Favila) that the World Bank says otherwise. But Ben Dapat was more expressive in his reaction.

Here is Ben’s line: Ownership of land is not the foremost obstacle to having foreign investments come to the Philippines. There are certain areas that ownership of land may be vital to them, but not all kinds of businesses. But these are taken cared of by the Long-Term Lease Law or the Special Economic Zones Law or any special law that may be passed. And not all kinds of foreign direct investments are desirable in our Country. Rich countries who want to locate in our Country for whatever reason may do so if we open our land resources to foreigners at the expense of the Filipinos. Has anyone heard about the many claims on the Spratleys? Is this the kind of foreign investments that we want? We are already strangers and economically oppressed in our own land right now by “Filipinos” who don’t even pay the right taxes on their businesses, if at all. And we have a very large population and increasing every day.”

Roger Lim agrees to everything that Ben said but he added more: I have been working with foreign-owned companies virtually all my life. Land ownership was never a serious impediment in our investing in the country. It is not absolutely necessary. It falls under the category of “it’s something nice to have”. For as long as the opportunity to make a decent return on investment is available, and repatriation of profits is allowable, even with tax, investors will come. When, the company I was working with decided to invest in India in 1986, India was more restrictive than the Philippines but many companies came. Call it the Herd factor.

Roger also has something to say about the judiciary: Many people forget that the judiciary is also an important factor that foreign investors take into consideration. It is in their top 5 of the list of ten items on their check list. Can they get a fair shake? Corruption that can be costed as expediting expense, and does expedite transactions, does not drive away foreign investors. The under-the-table extortion and unfair competition is the one that discourages foreign investors. That’s the kind of corruption and judiciary that we have. Favila may not know what he is talking about.

So there you are my dear about how some of our businessmen in Cebu think of foreign ownership of land. It’s a non-issue as far as attracting foreign investments is concerned.

The Japanese is one of the major, if not the biggest, investors in the country. So before I wrote this piece I tried to look for materials that had something so say about what factors they considered before committing to invest. This led me to an IMF article, “Japanese Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia with Particular Focus on ASEAN4,” written by Shujiro Urata of Waseda University in 2002.

Based on a survey, for Asia as a whole, Urata listed the following factors determining Japanese FDI: On top is the prospects of increase in local demand, followed by availability of low wage labor, prospects of increase in regional demand, presence of other Japanese firms, industry promotion by host government, good infrastructure, capability to produce products for the Japanese market, cheap land/finance, availability of locally produced parts, and availability of engineers.

Based on my readings, however, those who think of maintaining our wages at the lowest possible level to attract FDI will be surprised to know that it is not entirely correct because labor cost is better appreciated only if adjusted for productivity.

Similarly, cheap land as a factor for attracting foreign investment does also imply that foreign investors are interested in buying land because the same land can be rented on a long- term basis or can be had under other arrangements as what is being done in most of the economic zones in Asia. Finally, China which had attracted the biggest part of the FDI in Asia, does not rest its case in allowing foreigners to own land. Market size is its number one attraction, along with low wage labor, adjusted for productivity, of course.

Aurea Calica
Philippine Star

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. urged his colleagues yesterday to keep an open mind on his proposal to amend the Constitution and allow a federal system of government.

Pimentel urged the senators not to shut the doors on his proposal, pointing out that they have the power to prevent any move to extend the term of the incumbent President or lift the ban on reelection.

Pimentel took offense at arguments that his proposal could be used by Malacañang as a vehicle to allow President Arroyo to stay in power beyond 2010.

He said Malacañang or its allies must come up with their own proposal if they have an agenda other than creating a federal government.

Pimentel said fears that his proposal under Joint Resolution No. 10 to amend the Constitution and change the country’s political system into a federal state should not be the primary reason for his fellow senators withdrawing their support.

He admitted though that there were not enough safeguards to prevent insertion of other agenda, possibly including proposals to extend the term of the President and other elected officials or allow her another chance for reelection.

Pimentel said there are safety nets that will prevent any hidden political agenda from riding on his proposal.

Pimentel said the concern of helping the country’s regions, particularly Mindanao, to develop and have more autonomy is the primary issue in the proposal for federalism.

Malacañang, on the other hand, reiterated its support for Pimentel’s proposal for federalism and insisted it has no hidden agenda.

Deputy Presidential Spokesman Anthony Golez said the moves to amend the Constitution, through the proposal made by Pimentel, are all meant to find lasting peace in the south and nothing else.

Golez said the concerns of the opposition, including the senators who withdrew their support for Pimentel’s proposal, are unfounded.

Golez, however, noted the concerns about the support given by Malacañang to amend the Constitution as a ploy to extend the term of Mrs. Arroyo or allow her to seek reelection.

“Our President knows the Constitution very well and no statement can outweigh the expressed conditions of our Constitution limiting the term of the President,” Golez said.

He pointed out the final say on constitutional amendments remains with Congress and Malacañang can only extend its support or oppose any of these efforts.

Malacañang’s allies in Congress led by Speaker Prospero Nograles, for their part, assured critics and the opposition that they will exhaustively discuss the proposals for as long as the people wanted them to.

“Let’s do (it) the right way. If the people really want Charter change, then let’s do it – but let’s do it right under the true spirit and intent of the Constitution,” he said.

“We cannot afford to commit the same mistakes and waste time, effort and public money. The people’s sovereign will is the most important ingredient in this political process.”

Nograles said public consultations over the issue should be conducted, “to correct the past infirmities of previous Cha-cha (Charter change) initiatives.”

Nograles tasked congressmen to initiate public consultations and seek the true pulse of their respective constituencies.

“We must rub elbows with our respective constituencies and ask them what they really want,” he said.

Nograles said Mrs. Arroyo’s support for Pimentel’s proposal echoed the long desire of Mindanaoans for a federal state.

“President Arroyo only publicly expressed her support to the Senate Charter change initiative to make way for a federal form of government which we, as Mindanaoans, fully advocate for the sake of unity and peace,” Nograles said.

Only after 2010

Another administration lawmaker, for her part, said the support given by Malacañang suffers from serious “perception problem.”

Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong said Charter change moves will only prosper if there will be an assurance from Malacañang that the constitutional changes should be implemented after the 2010 general elections.

“Although Cha-cha is a good initiative, it is suffering from credibility and perception problems. Malacañang should work hard to save (the initiative) by convincing the President to heed the public clamor for its deferment,’ Limkaichong said.

Limkaichong proposed to proceed with the process of amending the Charter but deferring the implementation of the amendments until after 2010.

“We should implement it later, to dispel the wrong perception that those doing it are out to perpetuate themselves in power,” she said.

Another lawmaker urged Mrs. Arroyo against using the federalism proposal of Pimentel and the botched agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to extend her stay in power.

“We oppose the malicious use of the Moro people’s legitimate struggle for self-determination for this administration’s Charter change agenda and the opposition’s cashing in on the issue to attack the administration and push their own political interest,” said Rep. Mujiv Hataman of party-list Anak Mindanao.

Hataman said other fellow Muslim lawmakers are supporting the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) with the MILF for the simple reason that they believe “that this is a most viable step toward peace in Mindanao.”

Hataman said the MOA-AD no longer requires amendments to the Constitution, pointing out the government and the MILF have already agreed to implement its provisions only after a final peace agreement is reached.

Hataman said the MOA-AD would work under the legal framework of Republic Act 9054, or the law that created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

“And one cannot uphold RA 9054 without upholding the Constitution,” Hataman said.

Pimentel, on the other hand, said his federalism proposal should not be linked with the peace negotiations with the MILF, particularly the botched signing of the MOA-AD that would have allowed the Muslim separatist group self-rule.

The Supreme Court has stopped the signing of the MOA-AD following the petitions of local government officials in Mindanao over constitutional concerns.

“In my opinion, let us just wait for the decision of the Supreme Court (on the MOA-AD). On my part, I will continue to push for my proposal for a federal state,” Pimentel said, adding that he has pushed for federalism since 1982.

According to Pimentel, the MOA-AD is patently unconstitutional but stressed his proposal for a federal Muslim state is different.

“I want a federal system where the Bangsamoro people could have a federal state, which is currently covered by the ARMM,” he said.

– With Marvin Sy, Delon Porcalla and Perseus Echeminada

Juan T. Gatbonton
Manila Times

Those who advocate federalism now may be jumping the gun. That “there can be no sound decentralization until there has first been centralization” is apparently an axiom among students of public administration. And despite the executive branch’s tremendous de facto powers (that of the purse being the most potent), we as a people still have a great deal to do to gather our regions, provinces, cities, towns and villages in one coherent Philippine state.

From the beginning, geography and history have combined to make the national sense hard to instill in our people. No matter what Manila may decree, the law at rice-roots level is all too often still what the local cacique or factional-machine boss wishes it to be. We haven’t progressed very far from the time the Spanish king’s Philippine representatives could choose to “obey but not to comply.”

Layers of bureaucracy

Given our situation, federalism will merely add yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex network of public administration. What is worse is that, given the factionalism of our social life, federalism will likely legitimize the position of those who already monopolize local power. It will only deepen what the American thinker Larry Diamond calls “local enclaves of authoritarianism.”

Of course, federalism might be the ultimate answer to separatist demands by some of our ethnic minorities. But surely we could satisfy their longings for self-rule with generous grants of autonomy.

In my view, our immediate object should be to simplify government; to make plain to ordinary people just what they are entitled to expect from their rulers, and what the degrees of accountability are that they can demand.

Right now, the efficiency of public administration is actually diminishing. And the simplest measure is the tax effort, which has been declining since it peaked during the Ramos administration in 1997. (But even then it was markedly below the East Asian average.) We need desperately to begin professionalizing our bureaucracy.

Consider, too, the layer of regional offices that has been added on beginning in the Marcos period. Regional offices may have seemed a good idea then, but now they merely complicate linkages between Cabinet departments and local governments. We need to focus government on its basic goals and its core responsibilities. Right now, it’s behaving like the classical weak state—ranging all over the field of administration, chasing after quick fixes instead of grappling with real problems.

Focusing on the  basic tasks

Let’s face it. Given its abysmal degree of coherence and effectiveness, the Philippine State cannot hope to do very much. Hence, it must concentrate on its most basic functions: on the public tasks that only government and no one else can do. And these basic tasks must be those of maintaining civil order and political stability; nurturing the rule of law; setting sound macroeconomic policy; and building public infrastructure, both physical and human.

In the developmental states of East Asia, intelligent authoritarian governments directed “late industrialization” and imposed the stability and long-term predictability investors prize. It’s true there was also much corruption, but a strong state like Park Chung Hee’s South Korea extracted discipline and efficiency from its chaebols (business conglomerates) in exchange for the subsidies it awarded them.

Because the Philippine State is so weak, Philippine development must rely much more than the strong states did on the play of market forces—on incentives rather than commands. Development for us must be sensitive to people’s preferences. Its utmost goal must be to set free the spirit of Philippine enterprise.

It’s corruption, stupid!

I feel we must strengthen the Philippine State before we can do anything else. But despite its “Strong Republic” slogan, the Arroyo government hasn’t done much in that direction. In fact—as is common toward the fag end of any administration—the scramble for sleazy transactions seems to have become more and more frenetic.

As a result, people have come to see corruption as our biggest problem. And this is dangerous, because an authoritarian spirit is abroad in the world—counter-flow to the worldwide trend toward democratic transition—that is fed by ordinary people’s revulsion at the extent and brazenness of wrongdoing in office.

A sense of hopelessness has become palpable among some of our finest young people; while a few of their respected elders—who should really know better—are actually beginning to call for “honest” dictatorship! Certainly, we can no longer take for granted the supremacy of civilian authority over the military.

That we Filipinos are devoted to democracy so deeply we’re willing to die for it is one of our most cherished national myths. But we shouldn’t strain that belief too greatly—because we may find it rooted only weakly.

(Notes and Comment appears fortnightly.)

Joey Concepcion
Philippine Star

Over the past few days, we continued to get a healthy consensus from sectors we met that it is time for a real change. I have been consulting a number of people on the 2010.2016 proposal and no one had an objection on electing the constitutional convention delegates in 2010. At the same time, this is also when we will elect the new President, Senators and Congressmen.

It was quite clear that everyone I talked to wants the Constitution reviewed so that we can make necessary economic and political reforms. A number of people also asked why 2016 and not earlier? A longer timetable allows a more thorough review by the concon and also removes doubt that it may be used by incumbent officials or whoever will win in the 2010 election as the change in the system will not apply to them, but it will be during their incumbency that the transition by 2016 will be planned well.

So far, many other ideas have come about, from the idea of a bicameral or a unicameral parliament, having regional senators, to the president still being voted directly by the people and the prime minister being elected by the members of the parliament. But for me, this discussion can be brought about once we all agree on a concon on 2010. Let me share with you another input I got thru email on how many countries implement a bicameral parliament.

From: G.D. Chan (goldychan@yahoo.com)

Dear Mr. Concepcion,

In reaction to your 2010.2016 article in GoNegosyo, here is a list of countries with bicameral parliament. It seems to be not such a bad group to belong to. I would go for a parliamentary system, but bicameral. Given our experience with the House of Representatives, I do not think a unicameral parliamentary system would sell.

Countries with Bicameral Parliament

1. Algeria: Council of the Nation & National People’s Assembly

2. Antigua & Barbuda: Senate & House of Representatives

3. Australia: Senate & House of Representatives

4. Austria: Federal Council & National Council

5. Bahamas: Senate & House of Assembly

6. Bahrain: Consultative Assembly & Assembly of Representatives

7. Barbados: Senate & House of Assembly

8. Belarus: Council of the Republic & Chamber of Representatives

9. Belgium: Senate & Chamber of Representatives

10. Belize: Senate & House of Representatives

11. Bhutan: National Council & National Assembly

12. Bosnia & Herzegovina: House of Peoples & House of Representatives

13. Cambodia: Senate & National Assembly

14. Canada: Senate & House of Commons

15. Congo (Democratic Republic): Senate & National Assembly

16. Congo (Republic): Senate & National Assembly

17. Czech Republic: Senate & Chamber of Deputies

18. Egypt: Consultative Council & People’s Assembly

19. Ethiopia: House of Federation & House of People’s Representatives

20. Fiji: Senate & House of Representatives

21. France: Senate & National Assembly

22. Gabon: Senate & National Assembly

23. Germany: Federal Council & Federal Diet

24. Grenada: Senate & House of Representatives

25. Haiti: Senate & Chamber of Deputies

26. India: Council of States & House of People

27. Ireland: Senate & Chamber of Deputies

28. Iraq: Council of Union & Council of Representatives

29. Italy: Senate of the Republic & Chamber of Deputies

30. Jamaica: Senate & House of Representatives’

31. Japan: House of Councilors & House of Representatives

32. Jordan: Assembly of Senators & Assembly of Deputies

33. Kazakhstan: Senate & Assembly

34. Kyrgyzstan: Legislative Assembly & Assembly of People’s Representatives

35. Lesotho: Senate & National Assembly

36. Madagascar: Senate & National Assembly

37. Malaysia: Senate & House of Representatives

38. Mauritania: Assembly of Senators & National Assembly

39. Morocco: Assembly of Councilors & Assembly of Representatives

40. Netherlands: First Chamber & Second Chamber

41. Poland: Senate & Diet

42. Romania: Senate & Chamber of Deputies

43. Russia: Federation Council & State Assembly

44. Saint Lucia: Senate & House of Assembly

45. Slovenia: National Council & National Assembly

46. South Africa: National Council of Provinces & National Assembly

47. Spain: Senate & Congress of Deputies

48. Switzerland: Council of States & National Council

49. Tajikistan: National Assembly & Assembly of Representatives

50. Thailand: Senate & House of Representatives

51. Trinidad and Tobago: Senate & House of Representatives

52. United Kingdom: House of Lords & House of Commons

53. Uzbekistan: Senate & Legislative Chamber

To be fair, there are also economically-advanced countries that have a unicameral parliamentary system:

1. China

2. Denmark

3. Finland

4. Greece

5. Hungary

6. Iceland

7. Israel

8. New Zealand

9. Norway

10. Portugal

11. Singapore

12. Sweden

13. Turkey Ukraine

But please note the Asian examples. China is a totalitarian state while Singapore is such a small city state that perhaps there is logic to having just a unicameral body.

* * *

Please continue to send your responses via email at go.2010.2016@gmail.com or thru sms at 09175591245. Also continue watching the Go Negosyo Bigtime TV Show in QTV every Saturday and Sunday from 8 to 8:30 a.m. with replays in NBN every Sunday at 9 p.m.

* * *

Congratulations to the winners of the HSBC Young Entrepreneurs Awards for 2007-08, an annual business plan writing competition which aims to cultivate and inspire young people’s interest in entrepreneurship. I told HSBC President and CEO Mark Watkinson that this was one of the best competitions I have judged with very good teams presenting. Two teams from Ateneo won the first and second place and third place went to the students from UP Diliman. I did vote for the Ateneo team since they wore green ties. Kidding aside, they deserved to win and were honest with the originators of the ideas. The complete winners are the Flexisound team (Gold and Eco-Business Innovation Award) Menard Dacono, Katrina Gracia Macaraig and Klaire Aldyn King, the Portalis Team (Silver) Fay Irene Gurrea, Missy Cheah and Kamille Patricia Carlos and the Gaia Team (Bronze) Dindi Peralta and Mark Rome Race. Aside from myself, the judges for this competition were Mark Watkinson as Chair, Lorenzo Tan of WWF Philippines, Andrew Tan of Megaworld Corp., Wilfred Uytengsu Jr. of Alaska, Hans Schwab of SICPA and one of our Go Negosyo mentors Johnlu Koa of French Baker.

* * *

Be the first NOKIA MOBILE ENTREPRENEUR OF THE YEAR! The Nokia Mobile Entrepreneur Award is a nationwide awards program for innovative Filipino entrepreneurs that use mobile technology products and services in their business operations. Download the participation form at www.nokia.com.ph or www.gonegosyo.net and send via fax (+632) 637-7873 or e-mail at nokiamobileentrep@gmail.com. Deadline is on April 14, 2008. For more info call or text (+632) 637-9229, (+63919) 685-7079 or email nokiamobileentrep@gmail.com.

Jess Diaz
Philippine Star

President Arroyo’s allies among local government officials are planning a two-step Cha-cha (Charter change) initiative to overhaul the Constitution.

Bataan Rep. Enrique Garcia told a news forum in Quezon City yesterday that the first step calls for a people’s initiative (PI), a Cha-cha mode under which voters sign a petition to amend the Constitution.

He said the petition would be for converting Congress, now composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, into a unicameral or one-chamber legislature by abolishing the Senate.

“We will keep the presidential system, but with a one-house Congress,” he said.

He said the second step calls for the envisioned one-chamber lawmaking body to convene as a constituent assembly (con-ass) and rewrite the other parts of the Constitution.

He pointed out that if they succeed in shutting down the Senate, they would have no problem convincing the unicameral legislature to meet as a con-ass.

He stressed that at present, it is impossible for Cha-cha to succeed through a constituent assembly or an elected constitutional convention because both modes require the consent of the Senate.

“Thus, we will have a backdoor approach: PI first, then con-ass,” Garcia said.

In the same forum, former University of the Philippines president Jose Abueva said he thinks that Cha-cha would fail at this time.

“President Arroyo is so unpopular that any Cha-cha initiative by her or her allies would be suspect. Under such atmosphere of suspicion, nothing will succeed,” he said.

He added that even now, Mrs. Arroyo and her allies are suspected of being motivated by personal interests in advocating Cha-cha.

Garcia said the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), which groups all local officials throughout the country, has agreed to support the new initiative to amend the Charter.

“Madali lang ito (This is easy to do). We can finish it in March,” he said.

Garcia said the next elections in 2010 should be for President, Vice President, members of the one-chamber Congress who will be elected by district like congressmen, and local officials. “We should no longer have senators then.”

He revealed that he and other ULAP members plan to set up signature stations in every congressional district where voters can sign the petition to convert Congress into a unicameral legislature.

“This is just an amendment, not a revision of the Constitution, unlike the previous proposals. So we are confident that the Supreme Court, if a question is brought before it, would allow the people’s initiative,” Garcia said.

The Bataan governor was referring to the amendments proposed in the administration-backed Sigaw ng Bayan people’s initiative in 2006, which the Supreme Court junked, describing it as a “grand deception” and a “gigantic fraud.”

Anti-Marcos Charter

A top Malacañang official, meanwhile, expressed support for opposition leader Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. in his proposal to convene the Senate and the House of Representatives into a con-ass to introduce amendments to the Constitution and delete the so-called “anti-Marcos” provisions.

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Sergio Apostol said the proposal made by Pimentel is deemed the fastest way to amend the Charter and do away with its provisions which, he said, have become a stumbling block to the country’s economic progress.

Apostol, however, was quick to clarify that Malacañang has nothing to do with the Charter amendment initiative but supported the idea of Pimentel on con-ass.

Apostol said the 1987 Constitution contained several provisions that were included to prevent another dictatorship.

He said the Charter was crafted by anti-Marcos delegates whose mindset was to prevent a return of the regime by introducing several provisions which, in effect, kept the country in the economic doldrums.

Apostol said the so-called “nationalist” provisions of the Constitution have made the country lag behind in the global economic race. He cited a provision in the Constitution that limits foreign investment and equity in business in the country.

He cited more than 100 provisions of the Constitution which he said do not conform to the structure of a democratic government.

Apostol pointed out that China has relaxed its nationalist policy to attract foreign investment and propel the communist giant into the forefront of the global economy.

– With Perseus Echeminada

Maricel V. Cruz Reporter
Manila Times

THE House of Representatives again has revived efforts to amend the 1987 Constitution.

The House Committee on Constitutional Amendments headed by Rep. Victor Ortega of La Union will begin today hearings on several resolutions and bills filed pertaining to reforms in the Charter by way of a Constitutional Convention or Con-con.

The committee’s discussion will focus on House Concurrent Resolutions 3, 6, and 7 authored respectively by Representatives Felix Alfelor of Camarines Sur, Edelmiro Amante of Agusan del Norte and Antonio Cuenco of Cebu calling for a Con-con to propose amendments to the Constitution and to provide for the election of delegates in November 2008 to coincide with barangay elections.

Charter Change or “Cha-cha” proponents acknowledged an “overwhelming clamor among the majority of our people” to tinker with the Constitution “to make it more receptive to the new millennium and the needs of the Filipino people,” according to Amante’s resolution.

“The best way to amend or revise the Constitution is through a Con-con to be composed of elected delegates who are nonpartisan to be elected directly by the people,” the resolution added.

Amante’s resolution also underscored that Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such convention.

House Bills 1752 and 1876 penned respectively by Representatives Raul Gonzales of Iloilo and Carmelo Lazatin of Pampanga also called for a Con-con, as well as for appropriating funds for that political exercise.

Gonzales and Lazatin’s measures proposed that the Con-con shall be comprised of one delegate representing each legislative district in the country.

“Unless otherwise extended by Congress, the Con-con delegates will be granted a term of not more than one year to amend the Constitution exclusive of the ratification process,” Gonzales said.

On the other hand, Resolution 56 calls for the adoption by the House of the proposed amendments to the Constitution that were submitted by the Constitutional Consultative Commission.

Through Executive Order 453, President Gloria Arroyo formed a 55-man Constitutional Consultative Commission that will draft amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

On December 15, 2005, the commission submitted a report on the proposed amendments to the Charter.

The author of House Resolution 56, Rep. Jose Solis of Sorsogon, said he believed that the adoption of the proposed Charter amendments by the commission “will lead a strong party system by making political parties effective agencies of representative and responsive government.”

Solis added that such move will strengthen the existing local government structures to ensure an effective delivery of basic social services as well as provide a “meaningful and genuine local autonomy to spur countrywide development.”

Meanwhile, House Bill 2479 filed by Rep. Roque Ablan Jr. of Ilocos Norte proposed a people’s initiative to amend the Charter, stressing the people’s participation in proposing the necessary amendments to the Charter.

Fel V. Maragay
Manila Standard

SENATORS yesterday said they were open to new efforts to amend the Constitution and change the system of government, but said such reforms should take effect after 2010 to dispel suspicions that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wanted to extend her stay in office.

House Speaker Jose de Venecia, a vocal advocate of Charter Change, yesterday said the House had agreed not to take on the issue until key economic bills—including the P1.27-trillion national budget—were passed. But he said that January 2008 would be a good time to revive the campaign to amend the Constitution.

Senator Richard Gordon, chairman of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments, said he welcomed new debates on Charter Change and the President’s move to set up a high-level team to draft a road map to federalism by 2012.

Gordon said the fact that the President set a 2012 target should assure critics that she did not wish to remain in power beyond her term, which ends in 2010.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said he too welcomed the push for federalism, a cause he had long supported.

“Because President Arroyo is like the Greeks bearing gifts, we in the opposition should always be wary of dealing with her,” Pimentel said in a statement. “In any event, because my advocacy of federalism started long before [Mrs. Arroyo] became president and transcends political considerations or differences, the idea that it should now be discussed is acceptable to me.”

But opposition Senator Francis Escudero said he would continue to oppose Charter Change while President Arroyo is in power, and said the issue should not be made a priority because of the many other pressing problems facing the nation.

Palace officials yesterday said the President was just being consistent in reviving her call for Charter Change, and denied any connection to an impeachment complaint filed against her in the House of Representatives.

“This is not a matter of coincidence but of consistency and perseverance,” Presidential Management Staff Chief Serge Remonde said. “The President is just being consistent with her 2004 presidential campaign platform of political reforms.”

He said the 2012 target should dispel talk that Mrs. Arroyo wanted to extend her term, and give candidates in the 2010 election the opportunity to commit to federalism as a platform.

But the militant Akbayan party-list group said the new bid for Charter Change was aimed at gaining local allies for the administration in its confrontation with De Venecia.

Rep. Risa Hontiveros described the new Charter Change bid as a “proxy war” between the President and the speaker and said it was not a genuine call for federalism.

She accused the President of using federalism as “political insurance” against De Venecia. With Romie A. Evangelista, Roy Pelovello, Macon Ramos Araneta

Angelo S. Samonte, Reporter
Manila Times

Amid fresh calls for her impeachment and allegations of bribery to foil another attempt to remove her from office according to the law, President Gloria Arroyo has renewed her call for Charter change—or “Cha-cha.”

Mrs. Arroyo ordered the creation of a panel that would draft a “roadmap to federalism by 2012” when she spoke at the regional workshop on the Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia in Manila on Monday.

“The measures [under the roadmap] could include super-region planning and oversight bodies with officials and staff from the Regional Development Councils and national agencies to draw up programs and projects up to a stipulated amount for inclusion in the 2009 budget, legislation to affirm and expand executive issuances and eventually Charter change,” the President said.

She added the panel will be composed of the secretaries of Justice, Interior and Local Government and National Economic and Development Authority; Presidential Management Staff chief; leaders of local government units; congressmen; and even opposition leaders advocating federalism.

In her 2005 State of the Nation address, Mrs. Arroyo first broached the possibility of adopting a federal system of government.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a staunch supporter of federalism, had said the establishment of a federal system should be the long-range and ultimate political solution to the decades-old Muslim rebellion in Mindanao.

Pimentel’s argument was that a federal form of government would give more equal representation to people in the Philippines’ South, and federalism would also give them a degree of autonomy from Manila.

There are few national leaders representing Mindanao, especially the areas where there are many Filipino Muslims.

Mrs. Arroyo is facing a third impeachment complaint filed against her in the House of Representatives in connection with the controversial National Broadband Network project, which she canceled early this month.

Malacañang has been under attack by critics after giving cash gifts last week amounting to between P200,000 and P500,000 to pro-administration congressmen and local government officials allegedly in connection with the impeachment case.

Congressmen react

House Deputy Minority Leader and Rep. Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna Party-list said the bribery scandal is linked to the President’s move to revive “Cha-cha.”

In a statement, Ocampo added Mrs. Arroyo “is paying the price of political survival at the expense of taxpayers’ money.”

He said the filing of the “sham” impeachment complaint at the House of Representatives coupled with Malacañang’s bribery spree “is not simply designed for Mrs. Arroyo’s survival until 2010 but beyond.”

She is “literally buying her way beyond 2010, again on board her Cha-cha train,” Ocampo pointed out.

At least one congressman allied with the President defended her.

Rep. Prospero Nograles of Davao, head of the House contingent to the Commission on Appointments, said federalism has been the “cry” of Mindanao leaders and will be Mrs. Arroyo’s “lasting legacy if she can push it to its conclusion.”

–With Maricel V. Cruz

Roy Pelovello and Fel V. Maragay
Manila Standard

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal Arroyo yesterday revived her administration’s Charter Change plans, pushing for a federal system of government by 2012.

In a speech at a human rights workshop, Mrs. Arroyo said she was forming a panel to draft a roadmap toward a federal state two years after her term ends in 2010.

The panel includes the secretaries of interior and local government, justice, the heads of the Presidential Management Staff and the National Economic and Development Authority, local government leaders and congressional allies.

Mrs. Arroyo said the panel might include opposition leaders who favored federalism—a likely reference to Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a critic of the President.

The panel would take charge of drawing up programs and proposing a spending plan that would be included in the 2009 national budget, the President said.

It would also draft legislation and executive orders needed to push federalism forward.

Senators were cool to the idea.

Senators Rodolfo Biazon and Mar Roxas said the government should stop toying with the idea of amending the Constitution after its previous bid ended in defeat.

Biazon said he could think of no other reason to revive the Charter Change plan but to “cover up… very serious issues.”

Roxas noted that the proposal came when the administration was under fire over its $329-million national broadband network deal with the Chinese company ZTE Corp., a scandal that has triggered the third impeachment complaint against the President.

Roxas said this looked like an attempt to distract the public from the administration’s current political problems.

Charges of bribery and influence peddling over the deal have caused a rift between Mrs. Arroyo’s Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino party and the ruling Lakas-CMD headed by House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.

In Senate hearings, the speaker’s son, Jose de Venecia III, had accused the President’s husband of warning him to withdraw his bid for the broadband project. But De Venecia III’s Senate testimony also revealed lobbying efforts that the speaker made on his behalf.

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan pointed to a string of scandals over the last three years and said the Arroyo administration should leave constitutional reforms to its successor.

“Can we trust the Arroyo government to pursue Charter Change with the best interest of the nation at heart? Sadly, based on the string of unconstitutional and illegal acts… foisted upon us these past three years, the answer is most certainly not,” Pangilinan said.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled against administration-backed moves to change the 1987 Constitution through a people’s initiative.