Con-Com, a successful diversion

When Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo announced the creation of the Consultative Commission to be assigned the task of examining our constitution and making suggestions on how and which part to amend, if at all, I immediately wrote down my thought in this column. Not that it would really matter, but I imagined it could be of use in marking certain events. That was months back.

My observation was, at best, one of reservation. No doubt, there could be no nobler work than framing a fundamental law (or in this case, pointing out which parts of our constitution need be redesigned) especially where many of the men and women named to carry out the job were imbued with patriotic character. But, I reserved the point that such an assembly was without constitutional anchor.

Perhaps, because my understanding of our charter, brought about by about two decades of teaching Constitutional Law in the college of law could still be insignificant and very limited, I could not find any proviso upon which the creation of the Con-com could be based. Simply put, the methods of constitutional amendments are rigidly prescribed in the charter itself with the Con-com, not being one of them. That to me, should not be lost to Malacañang. It would be safe to assume that the brilliant minds surrounding Pres. Arroyo could not have failed to discern that while the president could pen fiats creating this or that body, it had no privilege to organize a body that would propose attacking our constitution. Given that scenario, I then believed that constituting the Con-Com was, for being a grotesque constitutional aberration, simply a part of a very intricate survival scheme.

It was classic military strategy which the palace resorted to. She had to survive the assault on the legitimacy of her election. Her move was obviously diversionary. When Con-com came into being, the president's claim to a legitimate 2004 poll victory was hounded further by the fertilizer scam. As I recalled, the Senate Committee on Agriculture headed by Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr., was poised to squeeze the truth from Usec. Joc-Joc Bolante. The situation was more explosive as the nation stood anxious to listen to the real story on the alleged expenditure of some 700 million pesos being channeled to buttress the election expense of Pres. Arroyo. One man had the key to the truth. It was Usec. Bolante. Unfortunately, the agriculture under secretary breezed in and out of the country, but he never got to the Senate session hall where senators (and the public) were waiting for him. So miffed were the senators that they were all set to unbind the secret power on which Bolante relied. Thus, to put up the smoke screen and divert the attention of our people, the Con-com had to be created in the same fashion that Commissioner Garcillano had to be resurrected.

Malacañang calculated that while Garci would just self-destruct and therefore his usefulness as a diversion, short lived, the matter of the Con-com as well as its concomitant issues, was more lasting. These could occupy the interests of a people, whose latest survey showed more distrust in the president, away from their making a collective outcry for her resignation. Time, long enough for Pres. Arroyo to find ways to fortify her beleaguered hold on the presidency, would be needed to clarify related issues. For instance, how much would the Con-com cost be? In the light of the economic hardship of our people, was that necessary? More importantly, would that be a legal expense?

Whether one likes it or not, President Arroyo has succeeded. With the machiavellian gambits she has taken working, she is surviving. Her diversionary move in creating the Con-com is honored by the premium attention we are giving it. Imagine, we do not talk about the kind of money used by the Con-com. Instead, we are consumed into discussing whether or not to scrap the 2007 elections as the Con-com proposed forgetting that if the constitution itself does not list the process which the Con-com has taken, its expense is, to state the obvious, necessarily unconstitutional. Consider further that we debate on the merits of the Con-com proposal for a unitary parliamentary government rather than find out what Usec. Bolante has to say on the alleged presidential plunder on the fertilizer fund.

I am not surprised to witness many other schemes as the president draws nearer to the time when another impeachment proceedings could be started all over again. Abangan.