By:ERIC CANETE 

CHARTER CHANGE; A MORAL ISSUE

(Erico Joseph T. Cañete)

EVERY MAN HAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A SOCIAL NATURE.  The former, with a body and a soul (Platonic concept), refers to our corporeal and spiritual entities. The latter is a unified composite of our sexuality, needs for others and our need for authority. Man shares his individuality with others to form society. Obviously, it is implied that man does not only exist for himself but for others. 

Civil society, as a collection of families, is an aggregate entity of people with varying needs and priorities. But there’s a way to orchestrate the differences by choosing conscientiously an authority who legislates and implements laws to achieve harmonious relationship and consequently, achieving society’s existential end; the common good. 

Presently, our country is confronted again with the issue of Charter Change. An issue which keeps on repeating in every set of incumbency. Is there a need?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is almost 37 years old reason some push the necessity to change it. Yet, our senators and members of the House of Representatives are divided on the issue. Some are in favor while others justify their nay banking on the anti stand of the people.

Economic provisions to suit to the needs of the present time serves as the justification why some sectors or groups are pushing for charter change claiming that we are left behind by our Asian neighbors like Cambodia and Vietnam. 

Would the charter change limit only to economic provision? Or is this just a justification to extend the term of our elected officials?

Recently, a pastoral letter passed by the bishops and the clergy of the Dioceses of Tagbilaran and Talibon on this issue. Per subjective comprehension, the stand is not against amending the Constitution, per se. So be it, if the circumstances warrant. 

The antagonism lies on the manner of amending it. There is nothing wrong with People’s Initiative. But it becomes a moral issue if one gets the 3% of voters in every legislative district and 12% of voters nationwide in lieu of, as alleged, allocating twenty million per congressional district. This becomes part of a dreary machinations of corrupt politicians who desire to extend their term instead of simply changing the economic provisions. This is not the essence of People’s Initiative.

It becomes apparent that those who desire such exist only for themselves and not for others. It’s not for society! It’s not for its existential end; the common good! It’s self serving! It’s selfishness! 

In this case, it becomes a moral issue since both means and end are morally evil in themselves.