In the first place, it could mean that there is already a pre-conceived plan for Congress to give its stamp of approval to the proposals of the Constitutional Consultative Commission (Con Com) more especially the "no election" in 2007. Indeed, if there is no such plan, there is no basis at all in conducting a debate on the "no-el" proposal simply because it is not yet strictly speaking a "proposal" that could be submitted for ratification in a plebiscite. All this talk about leaving it to the people to decide in a plebiscite on whether they want an election in 2007 is utterly misleading if not premature. There is nothing yet for the people to decide on this issue because the body (Con Com) which proposed it is not authorized to do so. But it is now becoming clearer that while Con Com is not authorized to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution, it will be indirectly empowered to do so through Congress as a Constituent Assembly adopting its proposals. The "no-el" which undoubtedly benefits members of Congress will not even look so self-serving since the proposal did not come from them any way. I hope Congress proves me wrong here.
Secondly, "no-el" in 2007 was proposed mainly because of the claimed un-preparedness and lack of credibility of the Comelec in conducting a clean and honest election. Undeniably, with the "Hello Garci" fiasco and the computerization scam, Comelec’s reputation has been irreparably damaged. The Con Com itself recognizes the Comelec’s inability to conduct an election truly reflective of the people’s will when it made that proposal to postpone the 2007 election. Indeed because of this reputation, the election of most officials last 2004 was likewise placed in doubt. If this body cannot be relied upon to conduct a clean and honest election why will it now be entrusted to conduct a plebiscite that will be truly reflective of the people’s will on the proposed amendments to the Constitution?
The Constitution is the main and most important document that holds this nation together and keeps it alive. If it must be amended, as I think it should be, the amendment or revision must not be done hurriedly or pursuant to a fixed timetable. Enough time should be given for an exhaustive debate and discussion on the proposed amendments so as to keep the people well informed about them. And most important of all, ratification of these amendments in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose must be truly reflective of the true will of the sovereign people. So, before calling for a plebiscite "that would decide what would happen in 2007", the first and most pressing step is a revamp of the Comelec so as to restore the people’s faith that it will give credible results of the required plebiscite. Let us not leave the fate of this most basic document to the vagaries of the "poisoned politics" now prevailing in our country. The need of the hour is for a new and more credible Comelec before 2007. Answering this need would decide what will happen in 2007.