Social Climate
Will extending term limits get ratified?
By Mahar Mangahas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:07:00 11/29/2008
Filed Under: Charter change, Politics, Congress, Research
Last Tuesday, as a resource person at a meeting of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, I reported to the body that the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) national survey, done Sept. 30 to Oct. 4, indicated strong public opposition to extending the allowable terms of office of the president, the vice president, the senators, and the members of the House of Representatives.
This means that, if any amendment proposals for extending term limits are submitted to the people in a plebiscite, I would expect the outcome to be a solid NO.
This assumes, of course, that by the time of the plebiscite nothing substantial will have happened to change the people’s minds on the issue. Thus, I told the committee, the sooner such amendments are submitted to the people, the more likely is the outcome of a NO. Those promoting such amendments are advised not to rush to be defeated by the Filipino people.
The strong popular opposition to extension of term limits is not a new discovery. There are similar findings in eight earlier SWS surveys, as far back as 2002; they are listed in a Nov. 25 SWS media release, and archived in the SWS website. There is no sign that the opposition has diminished over the past years. Furthermore, given the unprecedented public dissatisfaction with the performance of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the past several years, I do not see any basis for projecting a shift in public opinion in the foreseeable future.
The invitation from committee chairman Rep. Victor Ortega, the week before, prompted the SWS to release these non-commissioned survey results as a public service last Tuesday, instead of limiting them to subscribers.
One questionnaire item referred to a possible Charter amendment that would specifically allow President Arroyo to continue as chief official (“punong opisyal”) of the Philippines after June 30, 2008. The term “chief official” would mean the president in the current system, the prime minister under a parliamentary system, and any other term for the head of the national government under a revised constitution.
The above item resulted in a Strongly Disagree vote of 42 percent and a Somewhat Disagree vote of 21 percent, totaling 64 percent (correctly rounded). At the other end of the scale, the Strongly Agree vote was only 4 percent and the Somewhat Agree vote was 10 percent, totaling 15 percent (correctly rounded). Such a skewed distribution of answers, with Strongly Disagree outnumbering Strongly Agree by ten to one, indicates the great intensity of public opposition to a stay of Ms Arroyo in power through Charter manipulation.
The percentages opposed to President Arroyo’s staying in power beyond June 2010 are quite strong in all four areas visible to the SWS surveys—78 in Metro Manila, 70 in the Visayas, 62 in the Balance of Luzon, and 54 in Mindanao. Anyone with a local opinion poll that says differently should come forward.
A separate battery of questions described the current term limits of the president, vice president, senators, and representatives, without mentioning any names, and then asked whether the limits should be maintained, or lengthened, or shortened.
Most answered “maintain”—the percentages are: president, 68; vice president, 56; senators, 54; and representatives, 58. Many said “shorten”—president 23: vice president, 30; senators, 34; and representatives, 26. Only a few said “lengthen”—president 9: vice president, 14; senators, 12; and representatives, 16.
This means, first of all, that the opposition to lengthening the term of the president is not directed only at Ms Arroyo in particular but at anyone who becomes president. Secondly, it means that all the current holders of these positions are growing more unpopular, the more that they are seen trying to extend their own terms of office.
An attempt to switch to the parliamentary system, without saying anything outright about extending term limits yet having the same effect, will, I think, be easily understood by the people, and hence will meet with the same fate—a defeat at the plebiscite.
At the committee hearing, Chairman Ortega himself told the body that a proposal to go parliamentary would be silent about term limits, but would definitely allow not only Ms Arroyo but also Joseph Estrada, Fidel Ramos and Cory Aquino to run for a parliamentary seat. (Is this a possible game plan, I wonder—to secure the support of past presidents for Charter change, tempting them to also run for their personal seats, and then gaining a chance to beat Ms Arroyo in becoming prime minister?)
There were many questions from committee members as to what types of Charter amendments would most likely be accepted by the public. What about “economic reforms” (presumably, opening the door wider for foreign ownership in certain economic sectors) for instance?
For instance, Rep. Arturo Defensor Sr. told the group of a need for what he called a “trigger mechanism”—some non-controversial, yet justiciable, proposal that would lead to an expected deadlock with the Senate, and afterward could be brought to a friendlier Supreme Court for a decision on whether or not the House of Representatives could have the numbers to formulate an amendment even without the consent of the Senate.
I told the committee that an economic reform—subject of course to its exact details—would have a fighting chance of being accepted in a plebiscite, based on earlier SWS opinion research. However, I added that a Cha-cha package of economic reforms plus extension of term limits would most likely be voted down by the people at a plebiscite.
I told the group that the public would probably regard any trace of term-limit extension like melamine. They won’t buy the milk.
* * *
Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph
|
