This week, the petition of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), the president of which is Gov Erico Aumentado and the Sigaw ng Bayan suffered a setback. Even if the Commission on Election may declare that the signatures in the petition are valid, the petition may not be acted upon because of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling, which states that any change of the Constitution through Peoples Initiative will not be acted upon because there is no law for it. The proponents may fail but there are other ways. The change may be effected either through Constitutional Assembly or Constitutional Convention. It may take long but a change could happen.

It is not only the ULAP and the Sigaw ng Bayan who wants to have a say on the constitutional change, there is the One Voice movement and the Councils on Defense of Liberties or Codal, which advocates for a status quo. Why change the present charter? What is wrong with it? To these questions, we ask in return; what is right with it? Since it is not really correct to answer a question with another question, the present situation will have to be analyzed. The opposition wants change, not of the present system but change of chief executive. The administration and its adherents want a change of system including the chief executive. Ever since the present constitution was installed, there several attempts at change of chief executives. Pres Cory Aquino has to contend with several coup attempts. Pres Fidel V. Ramos was fortunate. Either because he won his position fair and square or he was a military man and the military would not go against him. Or both. Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada was not so fortunate. He was chased out of office by a mob.

There were noises about unseating Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as she served the un-expired term of Erap but Erap had not regained his popularity enough to make it serious. When she won against movie actor Fernando Poe Jr., whose name was really Ronald Alan Poe, charges of wholesale electoral fraud surfaced. Each year in office, a motion for impeachment of PGMA is filed in Congress. Her problem is not only with actors but also on how to convince the people that she won fair and square. Losing Filipino politician except for the late Raul Roco would always say he lost because of cheating. The problem therefore is to install a chief executive who could rightly prove he or she won rightly.

Once seated, removal of an unacceptable incumbent is hard, almost impossible. If the person cannot be removed by constitutional process, extra constitutional moves are attempted. Coups are attempted, EDSA IV, V VI ad nauseum are mounted. The problem in the present system therefore is not only in installation but also of removal of elective officials. Politicians would like to have their cake and eat it too. This is greed. In capital letters. If a change happens and should it be parliamentary, the masses cannot choose the Prime Minister. Only the Members of Parliament can do that. That means they will choose among themselves to head the government. Since their choice is limited to MPs, the quality of the leader would be the best among them. If a Prime Minister cannot retain the trust and respect of the members he can be replaced by two thirds vote and a new election will follow. Installation and removal is then easy.

If we go the Federal-Presidential system US style, the President is not elected by the common voter. The presidential and vice presidential candidate may be nominated by a political party, which is usual or by an independent group like Ross Perot. The candidate is elected by the state Electoral College. The members of the state Electoral College are chosen by the state, not from among politicians but from responsible persons in the state. In both systems cheating in the election of chief executive is next to impossible. There may be extensive horse trading, no political exercise is complete without that but since the choosing of the highest authority of the land in the hands of the responsible, demagogues and charlatans would not like that

If the senators would like to keep their House, why not go Australian style. Australia is has a parliamentary government with Houses of Representatives and Senate. However, the representatives and senators are elected locally. They represent their own province or state. Their government can be changed anytime by two-thirds vote. This means we have plenty of options to choose from. Only the privileged few, who benefit from the status quo, would like to retain their privileges. Us slobs down below would have to accommodate them. The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines and the Sigaw ng Bayan may have lost the first round. The fight is not far from over. Democracy is a great experiment and is never static. It does not matter whip advocates change. The present system is not responsive. It may be for the privileged few. . Why stick with it?