The passage of House Resolution 1109 late in the evening of June 2 didn’t create new suspicions. What it did was to reinforce old ones that had been present for a long time.

Does GMA mean to step down? Eight months ago, in its national survey of Sept. 29 to Oct. 4, 2008, Social Weather Stations found most Filipino adults already skeptical about whether “President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sincerely intends to step down in 2010.” Those who agreed with this test statement were only 33 percent, whereas those who disagreed were 39 percent. Others were undecided.

Thus “net agreement” in Arroyo’s sincerity was -6 in the third quarter last year. This being a single-digit number, SWS still termed national opinion as “neutral” on the issue at that time. It resulted from a combination of clear disagreement in Metro Manila (net -19) and the Balance of Luzon (net -14) with bare agreement in the Visayas (net +5) and Mindanao (net +5 also).

Three months ago, however, in the SWS national survey of Feb. 20-23, 2009, national agreement that Arroyo truly intends to step down in 2010 slipped to 31 percent, whereas disagreement rose to 43 percent, thus showing a growth of skepticism to -11 (correctly rounded). This double-digit negative is no longer termed neutral, but already unfavorable.

Between last October and this February, the net agreement that Arroyo sincerely intends to step down was negative in all four study areas of the Social Weather Survey. It worsened to -25 in Metro Manila. Elsewhere in Luzon it became -13, or about the same as before. But it switched from positive to negative in both the Visayas (net -2) and Mindanao (net -8).

The north-south pattern in skepticism towards Arroyo is unrelated to socioeconomic class. The Class D or masa and the Class ABC or middle-to-upper classes are equally skeptical at net -12. The very poor Class E are only slightly less skeptical at net -8. Thus Filipinos are not polarized by class on the issue of whether Arroyo truly intends to step down in 2010.

SWS will repeat its question about the sincerity of the President to step down in 2010 in its next national survey, to be fielded very soon.

The mode of Charter change (Cha-cha) is not for the voters to decide. SWS has polled opinions, several times in the past, about mode of Cha-cha, and found that a convention with elected delegates is by far the most popular. However, it’s quite clear in the Constitution that the selection of mode is for Congress, and not the electorate, to decide.

If both houses, voting separately, decide to have a Con-ass, I dare say no one can dispute it. If the Supreme Court decides to take up the pleading by HR 1109 that the three-fourths rule applies to the aggregate of legislators in both houses, and then rules in HR 1109’s favor, the will of the electorate will be immaterial.

Defenders of HR 1109 point out that its proponents made a covenant not to use it to extend the term of the incumbent President, among other things. This pledge is very strange, since the HR asks the Supreme Court to favor its interpretation of the three-fourths rule with a ruling that is general, i.e. not specific to any particular proposed amendment.

The HR argues lengthily—but not, to me, convincingly—that the SC ruling should precede consideration of any amendment. But I suppose a favorable SC ruling would generally apply to all possible amendments, making the covenant worthless. Or perhaps the new House elected in 2010 may claim that its members are not bound by a covenant of the House elected in 2007.

Two-thirds of the people will likely vote NO to any term extension for Arroyo via Cha-cha. The definite role of the electorate is to vote for or against any proposed Charter amendment in a plebiscite to be called for the purpose. Gauging the probable outcome of such a plebiscite is relevant work for opinion research.

Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules in favor of HR 1109, and that the lower house then approves some proposal that opens the door, no matter how slightly, to the possibility of Arroyo staying in power beyond mid-2010, and then a plebiscite is called for the electorate to vote on the proposal. In that case, let me repeat the message of the SWS Media Release of April 14, 2009: “First Quarter 2009 Social Weather Survey: 66% oppose Charter change to extend PGMA’s term.”

The phrasing of the SWS question on Charter change is: “Kayo po ba ay sang-ayon o hindi sa Charter change na papayagan si Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo na manatili bilang pinunong opisyal ng Pilipinas nang lampas sa Hunyo 30, 2010?” [Do you agree with a Charter change that will allow President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to stay as chief official of the Philippines after June 30, 2010?]

Here, the general term “chief official” clearly encompasses allowing Arroyo to run for a new term as president, switching to a parliamentary system where she may become prime minister, and any other constitutional manipulation to keep her as the country’s top official, under any title, after mid-2010.

The opposition to Cha-cha in February 2009 was as strong, if not stronger, than in the previous October (64 percent). The opposition percentage was high everywhere: Metro Manila 72, Balance of Luzon 66, Visayas 62, and Mindanao 66. It ranged from 64 in Class E to 69 in Class ABC; social classes are united in opposition to Cha-cha.

I don’t know how a two-thirds vote rejecting a pro-Arroyo Cha-cha can be thwarted by some trickery in the Commission on Elections.

The next SWS national survey will repeat the question about agreement or disagreement with a Cha-cha that allows Arroyo to stay as chief official of the Philippines after mid-2010. Results may be expected by the end of July.

* * *

Let’s all congratulate Rubilen Amit, the Philippines’ latest billiards hero, for topping the Women’s World Ten Ball Championship last week!

* * *

Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.