While economic growth and progress seem to be sluggish at the moment, the move to amend the Charter is very much alive, supported by a majority of the House members who are also winning allies in the Senate.

House Concurrent Resolution 16, which seeks to convene the Senate and the House of Representatives as a constituent assembly to propose amendments, including a change in the form of government, has already drawn support from 126 House members.

But it is not only a shift to the parliamentary form of government that is being looked into by cha-cha proponents. Other possible amendments concern reshaping the economic restrictions in the Constitution, a review of the term and term limits of elective officials and of the role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as a protector of the State among others as enumerated in last May's Political Summit's workshop number six, in charge of analyzing and discussing the 1987 Constitution.

House Resolution 220, introduced by Cong. Gerardo Espina, even seeks to allow foreign ownership and management of mass media and reiterates the need "to allow easier entry of foreign capital without necessarily limiting them to a minority share of ownership of such company."

All these, as stated in the resolution, should help "make the Philippine economy more attuned to the dynamic changes of the global economy."

But despite claims of cha-cha advocates that amending the Charter is necessary for national development, there still is a growing dissenting voice from various sectors in the society.

During a public consultation conducted by the Committee on Constituional Amendments in University of the Philippines, Quezon City last December, several non-government organizations (NGO's) and professional, religious and other groups were opposed to Charter change.

Dean Ernesto Pineda, president of the Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution, for instance, aired his stand against tampering with the Constitution until the local economy has achieved full recovery.

Bayan Muna Rep. Liza Masa, in her dissenting opinion regarding House Resolution 16, also stresses that the present political and economic climate shows that opening the Constitution to amendments could most likely undermine, provisions protecting our national sovereignty, patrimony and the respect of peoples' democratic and civil rights.

The move, she says, may also endanger provisions in Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and Article XVI (General Provisions), which guard against 100% foreign ownership of land, utilities, mass media and corporations operating in the country, as well as unjust foreign competition and trade practices, because the present administration is "geared towards making the Constitution compliant to the policies of globalization."

People's basic democratic and civil rights may likewise be imperiled since the government's support for the so-called anti-terrorism campaign would require amending provisions in the Bill of Rights.

Bayan Muna, while open to the idea of a change in the form of government, does not think that the move to open the Constitution to amendments is timely. It sees it as a risk since various interests such as "foreign and local big businesses, imperialist powers, militarist forces and the local elite surround the Consitution like vultures, ready to attack even the nominal provisions" to further economic, political and military interests.

Other opposing sectors of the society also stress that a charter change will only dissipate the government's energy and resources in addressing more pressing concerns such as the long-drawn crisis in Mindanao and economic problems that need immediate solutions.

Although it is unquestionable that the Constitution is an imperfect document that could use some changes, Rep. Maza believes that the debate on the matter cannot be reduced to a purely academic discussion since it is not happening in a social vacuum. It should instead be put in the context of current political and economic developments in both the local and international arena.

Back