MANILA — At this time last year, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was fighting for political survival after allegations that she had rigged the 2004 elections in her favor, and that her family, particularly her husband, Mike Arroyo, and son, Juan Miguel "Mikey" Arroyo, a member of the Philippine Congress, had engaged in corrupt activities.

A last-minute expression of support from former President Fidel Ramos and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines saved the day for Arroyo, who had lost the support of other influential leaders as did a predecessor, Cory Aquino.

A failed impeachment move by opposition leaders in the Congress also contributed to her ability to hang onto power.

But her determined opponents, coming from left and right of the political spectrum and from shades in between, would not leave her alone.

In February this year, on the eve of the anniversary of the original "people power revolution" which toppled the Marcos regime in 1986, another concerted move to oust Arroyo was launched by her opponents, including some 40 disaffected younger officers of the military.

Some 135 enlisted personnel also were suspected to have been involved in the destabilization attempt. Convinced by her advisers that this was a real coup, Arroyo proclaimed a state of emergency, eerily evoking memories of the Marcos dictatorship.

Even her Proclamation 1017 sounded pretty much like Marcos' Proclamation 1087, which imposed martial law on the whole country in 1972.

Arroyo's government also detained but later released some journalists and prominent leaders of civil society groups who had been demonstrating in the streets. Widely criticized by Manila's freewheeling media, Arroyo lifted emergency rule after the supposed "coup plotters" were rounded up and GMA, as she is popularly known, had regained the initiative.

So one year later, despite a succession of extra-legal moves to force her to resign or step down, she has managed to weather the political storm.

When news surfaced recently that her opponents would try to impeach her again this year, the bishops issued a pastoral letter saying they were not inclined to favor a new round of impeachment proceedings, calling this an "unproductive exercise."

Some dissenting voices in the clergy, however, favored going ahead with the impeachment move this time around.

By now, it should be clear that Arroyo's main strategy to stay in power is to divide her opposition. She has managed to divide the bishops, who exert tremendous influence in this predominantly Roman Catholic country. Her congressional opposition is unable to muster enough votes for impeachment. She also has split the local government hierarchy, composed of provincial governors and city and municipal mayors.

Well-known local "warlords" and Manila Mayor Lito Atienza, a former Honolulu resident, are her vigorous supporters. Civil society groups such as nongovernment organizations, not to mention the media, also are divided in their assessment of Arroyo.

"She will do anything to stay in power and survive as president," notes the Philippine-based Biz News Asia weekly business newsmagazine, which has listed Arroyo No. 1 in its latest list of "100 Most Powerful Filipinos."

She also has a way of deftly dodging the real issues and focusing on what people want to hear. In her recent state of the nation address, for instance, she spoke of turning the economically weakening Philippines into a "strong republic," achieving record revenue collections, "lining up corrupt officials to face the consequences of their misdeeds," and finding the funds to "stamp out terrorism and lawless violence."

The president also claimed that her administration will enhance the country's competitive advantage in the global community by developing its "natural super-regions": the North Luzon Agribusiness Quadrandgle, the Metro Luzon Urban Beltway, Central Philippines, Mindanao and the Cyber Corridor.

Critics could only ask: Who's going to pay for these mega projects?

The next issue for Arroyo, which she did not really mention in her state of the nation speech, is the controversy over proposals to have the country's constitution amended to shift to a federal-parliamentary system from its current presidential-unitary moorings.

Called "Cha-cha" (short for Charter Change), this radical move, which is supported by Arroyo, aims to install a prime minister to replace the presidency (now occupied by Arroyo, whose term expires in 2010) after the 2007 off-year elections.

The proposal has polarized the country into various contentious camps.

One camp favors a "People's Initiative" as the best way to amend the constitution through a plebiscite asking voters whether they want to change the political system. Another option, which was favored by 52 percent in a recent poll, favors congressional action, which can mean two things: convening a constitutional convention or Congress turning itself into a constituent assembly.

The proposed change might be as unattainable as amending the U.S. Electoral College. If the president and her supporters had their way, the Philippines would operate under a unicameral parliament in a federal setting, somewhat similar to the German example.

The country would have a number of estados (states), each having its own legislature responsible for major political and economic functions. As currently constituted, the provinces are heavily dependent on "imperial Manila" for their financial allocations.

But under the proposed amendment, power will be devolved to the "states" to raise and increase taxes, allow foreign ownership of property, develop land and commercial ventures, and so on.

National departments (which will be called "ministries") such as Tourism would be decentralized to Cebu City, for example, and Foreign Affairs could move into the now-vacant Clark Air Force Base.

On the whole, the Cha-cha advocates argue, a federal parliamentary system would be infinitely better for the economy.

The next three months are critical in getting the Philippine electorate convinced that this change is for the better. It's a tough sell. Since the Philippine Commonwealth days in the 1930s, voters have been voting for a president directly.

Though there have been attempts to devolve real powers to local communities, such as the 1991 Local Government Code, federalism is still an alien concept without any real institutional infrastructure. Likewise, a stable political party structure, which is an ingredient for a good parliamentary system, has not taken root in the country. Political parties are mainly shifting personal alliances, and constant party-switching is not dishonorable.

And a vocal group called One Voice composed of prominent bishops, businessmen and former government officials argues that the envisioned shift "would concentrate power in the hands of the already powerful," as reported by journalist Leila Salaverria of the Philippine Inquirer.

Some fear that Arroyo may become a president and prime minister at the same time. The critics also argue that the shift would deny the people's right to elect their leaders in a popular vote.

The debate is bound to intensify in the coming months.

Encouraged by the president's state of the nation address, Cha-cha supporters hope to gain enough momentum and support to get a plebiscite going, which will ask only one question: "Do you favor a shift to a federal-parliamentary system?"

If the answer is affirmative, the 2007 elections will be the transition poll toward a new institution away from the presidential-unitary republic, which has been blamed for many of the nation's continuing ills.

But this may be a long way off as several challenges will no doubt be lodged before the country's Supreme Court. Members of the Philippine Senate, which would be disenfranchised in a unicameral system, also will not give up their long-lasting power without a fight.

Meanwhile, the local executives, convinced that they have been denied real autonomy for far too long, will see the proposed change as an idea whose time has come.

Belinda A. Aquino, who visited the Philippines, is a professor of political science and Asian studies at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, where she also is director of Philippine studies. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.