Talk of Charter change leveled up with the broadcast of a secretly budgeted TV commercial that admittedly was well-produced even Fil-Am host Jo Koy would be proud of it.

The commercial shows actors in “freeze mode” while the camera pans over scenes depicting the failures of the 1987 Constitution. It clearly conveys the message that the 37-year-old Constitution needs amending now, considering that it has failed to live up to our expectations and that it was prepared at a different time.

One of the things our politicians have become experts at is administering elections. The last presidential election proved that we could have a president elected by the majority of the electorate — an achievement that was years in the making. If that was possible, how difficult can a People’s Initiative be, where it would only require 12 percent of the total number of registered voters and where each legislative district must be represented by 3 percent of its registered voters?

With 67 million registered voters, we are talking of only 8.2 million votes to meet the 12-percent threshold, and with a supermajority existing in the House of Representatives, what is 3 percent for each legislative district?

Further, the National Government has been laying down the foundation with the passage of a P12-billion budget for the Comelec, enough to hold a national plebiscite to ratify the call for Charter change.

What we must be careful and critical about is whether this will be used as a vehicle to cement its purveyors in power. The amendment of constitutional provisions to bring about economic development must be welcomed, such as foreign ownership of corporations and land.

There is indeed a need to revisit policies enshrined in our Constitution. We had laws in the previous administration pushing for these, considering that a constitutional amendment failed, given that the goal of a federalist system was too much to ask for.

We should be clear on what constitutional provisions would be amended, and these should not include highly political ones, such as term periods and limits.

But it would be impossible not to discuss these provisions. Instead, the approach must be to talk about this head-on, to tackle the elephant in the room rather than skirt it. We must admit that a three-year term for a good local politician or six years for a nationally elected official is too short a time to implement significant initiatives, given the slow pace of our government operations.

We can work better with five-year and 10-year terms for local and national officials, respectively. However, if this were to be implemented, it must be clear that the currently sitting officials should not benefit from these amendments, out of sheer “delicadeza,” if there is still such a thing, or we risk another people’s revolution.

The writings on the wall for a campaign for Charter change. It is coming, and the local politicians have begun making moves — although it is still not a sure thing and maybe political suicide for some. It may determine the political destiny of certain dynasties, with the 2025 midterm elections upcoming.

If the initiative wins, then it may guarantee longer staying power for families pushing for it. After all, each administration, after President Cory Aquino, pushed for Charter change, and no one succeeded. But with how things are going this early, it seems that the possibility of actual Charter change may be closer than ever.

For comments, email him at darren.dejesus@gmail.com.