“Cha-Cha” Sans Context: Issues Without Interpretation

CMFR File Photo.

A BACKER of charter change (cha-cha) since her own presidency, House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is apparently still deeply committed to the idea. But unlike her predecessor Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez (1^st District, Davao del Norte) who threatened to push for a “people’s initiative” to rush cha-cha, Arroyo is confident that both Houses of Congress can still convene as a constituent assembly (see monitor: “What to Make of the People’s Initiative on No-EL”).

Congress’ convening as a constituent assembly (con-Ass), along with a people’s initiative and a constitutional convention, are the methods sanctioned by the Constitution through which it can be amended. A con-ass requires a 75% vote of the assembly, composed of all members of the bicameral Congress of the Philippines, for the approval of any amendment.

However, the constitution does not specify whether the two chambers (Senate and House of Representatives) should vote jointly or separately (See box below for full text of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines).

On August 7, Arroyo filed a resolution for separate voting on charter change after some senators expressed concern that the 23 of them would be overpowered by the 292 lower house representatives in a joint vote. Arroyo also recalled that during her term, the moves for a constituent assembly reached an impasse on the issue of voting separately or together. In the past, Arroyo was pushing for a federal-parliamentary form of government as opposed to Duterte’s federal-presidential proposal (“Gloria Arroyo files resolution on separate con-ass voting,” “Arroyo ok with Senate, House separate voting on Cha-cha”).

Media’s coverage of the issue was limited to statements by Arroyo and other lawmakers’ reactions to the resolution. While some reports mentioned Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, media did not consult legal experts to shed light on the possible interpretation of the ambiguities in the language providing for con-ass, which is the preferred means of amendments of the lower house majority.

CMFR monitored the top three Manila broadsheets ( Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star and the Manila Bulletin ) the primetime newscasts (ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol, GMA 7’s 24 Oras, TV5’s Aksyon and CNN Philippines’ News Night), as well as the public affairs programs of cable news channel ANC from August 1 to 10.

Echoing Arroyo 

Most of the reports in the media echoed Arroyo’s sentiments. Only a few exceptions offered analyses or different perspectives on the issue.  The interpretation of the law by competing interests is often subjective as politicians have to look out for their interests.

Independent Constitutional and law experts could have helped to interpret how to achieve a 75% vote of members of Congress/constituent assembly. For instance, suppose both Houses decide on a separate vote but the results are contrary to each other? Because of its numbers, would the House results prevail anyway?

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III’s proposal to convene the two chambers as separate constituent assemblies is an example, which he explained when interviewed in ANC’s Headstart with Karen Davila on August 7.  Asked whether his proposal was a reinterpretation of the con-ass provision, he said the Constitution does not outline how Congress should propose amendments. Pimentel also said that “physically convening is unnecessary.” He added that convening as one during committee hearings and deliberations but voting separately for every provision would consume more time (“Headstart: Pimentel wants separate Con-Ass for Senate, House”).

Meanwhile, some lawmakers were cold to the charter change altogether. In an interview with CNN Philippines’ The Source on August 1, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said that House Speaker Arroyo has become a “unifying factor” in opposing cha-cha. He was firm in saying that the Senate will not adopt a joint resolution that will pave the way for a con-ass, emphasizing that cha-cha will not happen (“Lacson: Cha-cha ‘good as dead’ with Arroyo in the House”).

Charter change has been on the agenda of national leaders for decades. Political interests should be closely scrutinized and media should present analysis to show who gains from charter change. Some historical reference and backgrounds of political players should contextualize reports on current discussions of “cha-cha.”  Information and analysis of the pros and cons of amending the 1987 Constitution should come from disinterested sources.

(See related monitor: (“Federalism Faces Uncertain Future: Media Misses Meaning of Cabinet Opposition“)