What’s in a mode of amending the Constitution? The Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives immediately reacted with vehemence when the President announced that the Constitution should instead be revised through a Constituent Assembly to save some P6 billion, the estimated cost of creating a Constitutional Convention. The members of DU30 CORE who are known as true-blue advocates of federalism to transform the country into a real democracy felt like being doused with cold water. Why such strong reactions against the mode loosely or derisively called ConAss?
The Philippine Constitution provides for three modes of constitutional reform. The first is by Constituent Assembly where, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members, Congress may propose revisions to the Constitution. Since the members of Congress are essentially lawmakers while the act of revising the Constitution is a constituent act—that is, as representatives of the sovereign people—they shall in effect, don a different hat. Then, after Congress crafts proposed revisions to the Constitution, it will then be presented to the Filipino people for their ratification in a plebiscite.
People who oppose ConAss as a mode of Charter Change have at least three major objections against it. First, there is an ambiguity in the wording of the Constitution which says that “any amendment or revision may be proposed by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.” Congress, as we know, consists of two chambers, the upper (the Senate) and the lower house (the House of Representatives.) How will three fourths of all its members be ascertained? Will it be by adding up the members of the Senate who are only 24 and the members of the House numbering 238 and then getting three fourths of such total? Or, will three fourths be computed separately, that is, three fourths of the Senate and three fourths of the House? Although experts say that the reckoning of three fourths should be separate, this may still create a problem which could effectively delay the process of amending the Constitution. Another issue raised by those who object to ConAss is that the members of Congress may not have the needed competence or expertise in crafting a new Constitution. This, again, could result in a failed exercise to reform the Constitution as the electorate may simply vote down the proposals out of uncertainty as to whether or not to trust the members of Congress. The third reason is that it is a common apprehension that the politicians comprising Congress may be guided, not by the people’s common good. Rather, they are influenced by pressure groups or their own vested interests. People generally fear that traditional politicians will most likely not address issues like political dynasties, “turncoatism,” electoral reforms, and the party-list system.
Now compare ConAss with the second mode of revising the Constitution—by Constitutional Convention. Under this mode, Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, may call a Constitutional Convention. If this number is not mustered, Congress may, by a vote of a majority of all its members, present to the people in a plebiscite the question of whether to call for Constitutional Convention or not. The members of the Constitutional Convention, generally, will be elected by the people although—as some experts opine—the chief executive may appoint some of them provided the law creating the Con-Con shall state so. Under this mode, constitutional experts, academicians and professionals who are not traditional politicians stand a good of becoming members of Con-Con. Once convened, the Con-Con can look into the entire Constitution, even overhaul it, and then propose a revised Constitution.
In either ConAss or Con-Con, the proposed revisions must be ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after approval of the proposed revisions either by the Con-Ass or Con-Con. The period between 60 days up to the plebiscite shall be used for information dissemination.
The third mode of amending the Constitution is by people’s initiative. This, however, cannot serve the purpose of reforming the system of government from the unitary to the federal system as the change entails large-scale revisions. People’s initiative has been declared by the Supreme Court as valid only for the amendment of one or two provisions in the Constitution.
The question that comes to mind now is—since so much is at stake in changing our 29 year-old-Constitution as it involves the future of the country and its citizens—is whether the cost of a Con-Con would be worth it. After all, the expected results can bring about inclusive growth, genuine devolution of powers to the regions and economic progress. Yet, if Con-Con is now out of the radar for reasons of cost constraints, perhaps the President can create a preparatory commission composed of constitutional experts to assist Congress when it performs the work of a Constituent Assembly.
Anything that serves the best interest of the Filipino people is worth considering.
Email: ritalindaj@gmail.com
Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph