When it comes to the Philippine House of Representatives, it seems that everything can be resolved by a question of numbers. During the several attempts of the opposition and people's organizations to file impeachment cases against the President, the issue was eventually voted upon-- and as expected, the numerically superior groups carried the day.
 
Again, with the talk of charter change in everyone's lips, its proponents at the House seem to be sure of getting the required signatures from members of both the House and the Senate to satisfy the constitutional requirement of a three-fourths majority for a constituent assembly. Being able to mobilize representatives at the House to cast their votes in their numbers, it seems that for some quarters, this three fourths requirement is nominally easy to achieve by making the Senate and the House vote as a single body. Surely the more numerous would win the vote-- it is just a matter of numbers.
 
Let us use a common mathematical idea-- proportion-- to check on the soundness of this proposal. Representatives at the House are elected by congressional district, or nationwide by a choice of party in the case of party list representatives. Senators are also are chosen nationwide with the top twelve in the election replacing half of the Senate during each poll. Using the idea of proportional representation in our legislative bodies, the proportion of the collective mandate would be different for each member of the two chambers. It is therefore not a straightforward proposition to simply mix together the members of the House and the Senate and to have them vote jointly to sit as a Constitutional Assembly.
 
The problem at hand is like counting coins. One does not count the number of coins to obtain their total worth but we do this by adding the associated value attached to each coin. Having fifty 1 peso coins is surely more numerous than having five 10 peso coins but they both add up to the same amount. One would have to deal with each denomination separately.
 
Even if the question of this manner of voting reaches the Supreme Court, some quarters seem to be also sure of the number of friendly ears sitting in the Court. Yet even those opposed to the moves to charter change are trying to show their strength by showing (or announcing) their numbers. Various church groups including the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines and other protestant denominations together with civil society groups have vowed to launch protests against the move. They bank on reflecting the collective sense of the people as measured by the various surveys showing that 77% of those aware of charter change initiatives are not in favor of these moves.
 
Numbers abound in the issue of Charter change. There are debates on the number of chambers in our legislature: a unitary form of government with a Parliament, or retaining the dual houses that our lawmakers have now. Even the contentious issue of term extensions, the debate are on how many years will current officals be allowed to stay before new elections are held. Even the name of No-El reflects the numerical sense of having zero elections come 2010.
 
While there may be debates on the form of government and term extensions, charter change advocates all agree on the provisions for economic liberalization. In the Con-Com reports and the proposals being floated in the House, foreign corporations will be allowed to own industrial, commercial and residential land. They will also be allowed to lease public lands for a period specified by Congress. The proponents of charter change are banking on economic liberalization as the means to attract more foreign investments and as an engine for economic growth.
 
Even here, numbers should also bear us out. During the period of increased foreign investments in the country, our economic growth have remained low as these firms also repariate most of their profits to their mother companies. The proposed provisions for liberalization will aggravate landlessness in the countryside, foreign mining for export and the continued exploitation of our natural resources.
 
Yet changing the Constitution should be really about numbers-- not the narrow cardinal counting proposed by some in Congress nor the number of terms one gets extended nor how many hectares can a foreigner own. The actions on Charter change should be reflective of the number of people that will be affected by these major change in policies.
 
Some sectors note that with the current global economic crisis, we should instead focus our collective sense in trying to strenghten our own economy rather than being embroiled in a numbers game with our charter. The increasing hardship and our worsening economy-- these are the numbers that really count.