Generally overlooked by the public Tuesday was the public hearing in the House of Representatives on Charter change. At that hearing, the problematic approach of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration to constitutional amendments became obvious.

Speaking for the principled supporters of Charter change, former University of the Philippines president Jose Abueva said he preferred election of delegates to a constitutional convention in 2010. Most other resource persons preferred election of delegates after 2010. Both opinions are pretty much in keeping with public opinion as far as amending or revising the Constitution is concerned.

The League of Cities, on the other hand, said its members favored a constitutional convention in November 2008—the month that is about to end—but, failing that, they favored exploring all other means to change the Constitution. Since their proposal is obviously impossible, it means they support whatever means can be found, to amend, revise, or even replace, the Constitution before 2010.

Congressmen at the hearing generally kept mum. But lawyer Neri Colmenares caused a stir by pointing to the different resolutions filed at the House, proposing changes to the Constitution. The most controversial of them, House Resolution 550, proposes the extension of the terms of all incumbents, including that of President Arroyo, and postponing the 2010 polls to June 30, 2011.

Another resolution proposes the abolition of term limits. Yet another proposes replacing the current three-year term of congressmen with a four-year term as was the case from 1941 to 1972. And yet another is possibly as controversial as House Resolution 550: House Resolution 14 proposes to eliminate the power of the Supreme Court, post-EDSA People Power, to intervene in, and review, allegations of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of officials.

The President’s eldest son, Rep. Mikey Arroyo of Pampanga province, himself tried to push forward an argument that was in line with House Speaker Prospero Nograles’ own proposal to amend the existing constitutional limitations on foreign ownership of land. “If we liberate this barrier of foreign ownership,” the Arroyo son said, “more investors will come into our country and have more control of our money. That’s what they have been saying. I’m only interested in that specific provision.”

We wonder if he was being honest or he made a Freudian slip.

To be sure, these are all merely proposals that have yet to be debated before they can be voted on by the House. However, they do indicate, in broad strokes, the motivations—and aspirations—of congressmen in pushing for Charter change at this time. They indicate, further, what is problematic about the whole Charter change debate at present. The cart has been put before the horse. The House is moving, focused on securing enough votes to be able to argue before the Supreme Court that in the specific case of constitutional amendments, the entire composition of Congress—House and Senate combined—without need of formal convocation, and definitely without voting separately, can act to propose such changes.

What those changes are, no one quite knows except in the broadest strokes—and depend strictly on whom you ask. So the public cannot figure out if this is truly for the sake of reform or purely for the promotion of self-interest and the convenience of incumbents. And House members wonder why there is a deep unease throughout the land concerning what they’re up to?

It is obvious that the House intends to pursue Charter change, relying on its expectations that it will get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court and that public opinion would not matter because the public is powerless to do anything to stop it. It is keeping the discussion vague precisely to prevent people from organizing or acting—at least not until its cause is armed with a favorable Supreme Court decision.

A clear constitutional menace is presenting itself. A smokescreen of dissembling, combined with the expectation that the holiday season will dull public interest, has been thickly laid.