No To Charter Change

Charter Change. Is Charter Change will change the system of our government for the goodness of many people? Or this Charter Change will worsen the situation of our country? Is Charter Change aimed to serve the poor? Or this Charter Change is intended to benefit the rich politicians? Will this Charter Change improve the standard of living of Filipino families? Will it provide home to the homeless? Will it feed an empty stomach? These are the questions I raised to the people in the government. These are the questions of a youth who wish to have a good government.

The main issue for charter change is for government to improve the lives of millions of people in the Philippines, but is that their concern in their seven proposed amendments? To answer that question the following are the seven proposed amendments proposed by House Speaker Jose de Venecia (www.inq7.net):

1. Transformation from the presidential to the parliamentary system.
2. Establishment of a unicameral legislature and abolition of the Senate.
3. Lifting the term limits of elected officials.
4. Providing for a five-year term of office for all elective officials.
5. A ban on political "turncoatism."
6. Creation of autonomous regions toward the establishment of federal system
7. Easing of restrictions on foreign investments in the country.

No to Charter Change! As a concern citizen in this country, I am not agreeing with this new form of government. Our country is not on good condition, it is in the midst of crisis. If they pursue to change the form of government, this will create another problem in our country. Why not change the leader first? What’s the use of changing the system of the government if there are the same leaders who ruled? Nothing will change if we have same leader, gap between the rich and the poor continue to widen and the government is inefficient and rife with corruption on all levels. The government must solve the existing problem (criminality abounds, substandard schools, children are physically and mentally stunted by malnutrition, poor health care and disease resulting from poverty) before creating another problem. The decision of changing the form of government must mean to make government more effective, more honest and more credible. I’m hoping changing the form of government may not intend to worsen the situation of our country instead make it a better place to live. If they change the form of government, why not Martial Law as what our late President Marcos did? I think Martial Law is better that changing Presidential form of government to Parliamentary. This Parliamentary system will just tolerate the wrong doings of the politicians.

These seven amendments do not aimed to serve our helpless people rather it is intended to benefit the greed politicians. These proposed amendments are intended to tolerate the power and control of the politicians. What is the reason behind why they included the third (Lifting the term limits of elected officials) and fourth (Providing for a five-year term of office for all elective official) amendment? Why not giving free house and education? It is clear to me that this new form of government will not be good in our country. We should not give an extension to the term of a leader if he/she’s not doing anything in country. It is better to limit the term of those leader who don’t deserve the position. These proposed amendments have the intention to perpetuate and consolidate power which is not a good step in solving the problem of our country.

We have a presidential system of government for over 70 years, hoping that this system will produce good leaders who can solve problems and make good decisions for the benefit of the people. I think 70 years is enough to improve the standard of living in this country but it was understood in the fact that many of our voters are poor which enable politicians to buy their votes and election officials can be bribed to alter the results. But still, in this country it is important to listen to the voice of people and consider their votes. It would really be unfair to the people if they can’t express their freedom to choose a leader. What if these people don’t like the way such leader rule the government? People will just rebel and it will creates a big rally and blood stain in the street, another EDSA history. I think they must change first the leaders before they change the form of government. If they wish to change the form of government make sure the beneficiary are those who are helpless not those who are living in wealth. Charter Change will only change the letters and words of law but never the people.