That proposed parliament, we must remember, was going to be a unicameral one, with the present Senate effectively abolished and the present House of Representatives reincarnated as the single body legislature.

The governors, of course, were to remain where they were, with the same powers and responsibilities.

Since the first push for Charter change, this administration and its allies have retreated, moved forward, retreated and moved forward again. After the Peoples’ Initiative route failed, the House members tried the "Constituent Assembly" route. This met stiff resistance, and, with threatened massive protests from power-broking organizations disguised as religious blocs, the House leadership took three steps back and offered to call off the "Charter Change via Constituent Assembly" route if the Senate were to agree to call a Constitutional Convention within 72 hours.

But that route, too, was blocked, when the Senate refused to buckle under the ultimatum of the congressmen, and Malacañang stepped in to allegedly pressure the House Speaker to stand down from his latest moves. The Palace even released a statement saying that it was heeding the wishes of the people and recognizing that the people in their infinite wisdom would eventually determine for themselves the mode and the time for Charter change.

At this point it seemed that for once Charter change was dead in its tracks and the Palace distancing itself from the effort. And then the Roman Catholic Church proceeded with a dud of a prayer rally, and the Palace changed its tune again. Before the Asian Development Bank, the President intoned that Charter change remains a priority of her administration, to be addressed "with fervor"; and once more the Cha-Cha train was on the move, never mind if at the expense of the credibility of the president of the Philippines – or of whatever was left of it.

And again, the governors are at the forefront of the effort to get the 1987 Constitution revised. This time the effort consists of dropping the idea of having a "prime minister" by maintaining the presidential form of government, but revives the idea of a unicameral legislature which is basically a reincarnation of the lower house. And again, governors were to remain where they were, with the same powers and responsibilities.

If only our governors were a little brighter.

If you ask me, the idea of Charter change provides us a unique opportunity to actually reinvent government and create a more representative and responsive structure. And if one way to do this is to abolish one of our current two houses of Congress, then why not abolish the House and keep the Senate?

The governors don’t seem to get it: Seventy or so percent of the bills passed by the members of the Lower House are local in nature: the construction or the change of names of streets, buildings, schools hospitals or bridges – bills that may be better discussed, debated and, where appropriate, passed by the provincial, city or municipal boards or councils! What do you need a congressman for that, when you have a governor (or mayor), and a provincial bokal (or city/municipal councilor)?

Instead of abolishing the Senate and electing representatives based on the present district set-up, why not devolve the responsibility for local legislation to the provinces, cities and municipalities, and abolish district representation altogether? That would instantly abolish 200+ pork-barrel consuming positions in the national government, not to mention the 1000+ bodyguards that go with them. Power is devolved to the provinces, cities and municipalities, bringing government much closer to the people!. As to the Senate, what we could do is to increase its membership to, say, 48 or even 72 members elected not by districts but nationwide, and call it the National Assembly. This guarantees that each assemblyman is responsible to the national electorate and not simply to voters in a certain district, a set-up which in turn will allow him to ignore the rest of us. At the same time we insure regionalized representation by requiring voters to choose 1/6 of the members of the Assembly from Mindanao, 2/6 from Visayas, 2/6 from Luzon and 1/6 from Metro Manila.

The question is: How broad-minded are our governors? How willing are they to craft a path of their own rather than be led by the nose? Do they see the golden opportunity to remake government the proper way, or a different type of "golden" opportunity to remake government the way certain vested interests want it remade?

The fact is, Charter change provides us an excellent opportunity to give our governors and other local officials greater power concomitant with greater responsibility, resulting in stronger government at the grass roots.

I am itching to shout "Power to the governors!" But I wonder: Are our governors up to the task?