Certain distinguishing characteristics might ensure the success of the covert and overt “sweet stratagem” to set the stage for a Charter change with the least resistance. Let us roll them out and briefly explain why this is about a done deal.

Bandwagon effect. From Day 1 when the House of Representatives unanimously voted the sitting Speaker “primus inter pares” it was established that the chamber would stamp its patronizing approval on any bill certified as urgent by the President — and possibly passed in record time.

King’s largesse. As in any game theory, it is quite understandable why every member of the House would rather kowtow to the “impulse” of the Speaker and his strong following since it is the only way to benefit from a blind allegiance or loyalty to the powers that be. After all, more is achieved under a united front.

Self-maximizers. Nearly every politician puts parochial interest above all else. Still, however, if the opportunity presents itself to maximize their perks or spoils of office, then even the good men become “wicked.” Who would move away from a positive reinforcing stimulus they sometimes call “payola?”

Trade-off. It would defy logic if one did not agree to a legitimate scheme where one could hold on to a position without a term limit over a short three-year cycle. In putting the 1987 Constitution on the operating table, which old provisions would they take out and which new provisions would they put in?

Line of succession. As a subtle way to perpetuate themselves in power, nobody will mind if the Speaker becomes the next head of state with him being appointed by a majoritarian vote of the membership as the Prime Minister so long as they also enjoy no term limits.

With the Speaker as the alleged “invisible hand” behind the House of Representatives’ push for the signature campaign for a “People’s Initiative” on the one hand, and Senator Imee Marcos as the arch antagonist in the Senate on the other, the resulting scene is a feuding “political clan.”

It is a strategic move for the Speaker to challenge the claim of the lady senator as in so doing, it relieves FM Jr. of any blame later as it would put in serious doubt whether the Speaker’s act had the imprimatur of the President. It will remain a deal that was presumably forged behind closed doors.

Cha-cha’s rallying point. Over the issue, the worldviews or versions of the House of Representatives and the Senate are diametrically opposed on the matter of whether to vote separately or jointly. The Senate is more inclined to thumb down the passage of a bill or joint resolution for a “people’s initiative” as the mode for Charter change.

Endgame. It has been a constant attempt every time a new administration takes over the helm of government. Assume that the “People’s Initiative” has been given due course and that in a plebiscite held for the purpose it is ratified. So, what would the amendment(s) be, subject to serious examination? Will it be a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government or a federal one?

Or it will all be about amendments that will delete the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution as proponents want us to believe in the first place? What “chips” will they put in place that have not already been — in the form of bills — passed and approved as newly minted Republic Acts?

In any event, can the Senate muster enough fortitude to limit the discussion only to the economic provisions in need of amendment and nothing on politics like the not-so-benign agenda of extending the term limits of elected officials?

As the saying goes: “If the mountain won’t come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain.” The more it becomes clear that the proponents will extend their term limits, the less likely Charter change will be ratified in a plebiscite.