Speaking in the halls of the House of Representatives should have been empowering. As a student advocating for greater stakeholder participation in legislation, I should have been thrilled to speak in the deliberation of the Committee of the Whole House on the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) 7. I realized, however, that stakeholder engagement within a rubber stamp chamber alone can only do so much.

The House passed RBH-7—the resolution that seeks to amend provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution—on its second reading on Wednesday, exactly one week since it passed the first reading. 

The House invited various stakeholders, but with how the deliberations panned out, the pro-charter change majority had no intention to listen to dissenting voices. Attendance was sparse in the plenary hall and their stances were already beyond changing.

I asserted that the removal of the protectionist provisions in the Constitution goes against our long history of struggle for liberation. I contended that the resolution is detached from expert recommendations and diverts attention from addressing persistent issues in the education sector. Several others also expressed opposition to the proposed amendment to the educational provision.

Proponents of the resolution, on the other hand, argued that foreign ownership is needed to improve the quality of education. They could only admit to the dismal state of education, but not to the role of the state in facilitating such failure. Rep. Stella Quimbo compared our education outcomes to our neighboring countries’ institutions and our top local universities to foreign-owned ones, yet spoke nothing of how the government’s education expenditure falls far behind the United Nations standard and the global average.

Instead of addressing our concerns, the proponents only responded with the same string of fallacies and narrow-sighted rhetoric. For one, Quimbo asked me if I would forgo the opportunity to study at Harvard University to become a globally competitive journalist. She cut me off when I said that this is not about me and that the larger issue that needs to be resolved is the inaccessibility of education which cha-cha will exacerbate.

It is clearer, then, how the political elite weaponizes institutions to disenfranchise us within their halls of power. The government can easily conjure the illusion of having a functioning democracy, but beneath the surface, the decisions of most lawmakers are often already predetermined by selfish interests.

Our progressive representatives in Congress are outnumbered by self-serving elites, but history has taught us that battles are not won only on one front. Without the people who took to the streets, cha-cha attempts in the past 30 years would have already passed, allowing for unchecked consolidation of power, removing protectionist provisions, and even restructuring our system of government.

As our lawmakers strive to railroad cha-cha and justify the subjugation of our education system to the will of foreign superpowers, we confront the greater challenge to unite and forward the mass movement that will complement our struggle in the House. The politicians may be able to manipulate us within their chamber, but their treachery is no match to the united force we can mount on the streets. ●

First published in the March 15, 2024 print edition of the Collegian.