Most viable method

The thawing of the icy relations between the Senate and the House of Representatives and between the Executive Department and the Senate somehow gives us a glimmer of the light at the end of the tunnel. I hope it is the beginning of the end of bickering, politicking and unproductive discords among our leaders even at least on the matter of Charter change. To be sure, there is still some iota of misgivings on the sincerity of the protagonists, but the sight of their seemingly spontaneous smiling faces engenders some kind of assurance that beyond the photo-ops will be the concrete, unhurried, and well studied actions leading to the Charter amendments or revisions sorely needed by our country like yesterday.

A Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) would have been the most ideal mode of changing our Charter in normal times and under a more favorable economic climate. But that is not our present situation. We cannot afford to spend billions of pesos more to form and defray the expenses of a convention that will tackle changes in our Charter. On the other hand, we already have an existing Congress which is also empowered by our Constitution to form itself into a constituent assembly (Con-Ass) for purposes of amending or revising it. Our Congressmen and Senators may as well put their time, talent, effort and pork barrel to good use and better endeavors by convening as a constituent assembly and coming up with the proposed Charter changes. The expenses, if any, will be minimal. No additional appropriation is needed to operate as constituent assembly since they already have the necessary staff, equipment and working site. And, by and large, there are enough competent and qualified legislators who can come up with a good, albeit imperfect, Constitution. Indeed, there may not be much of a difference in terms of competence and quality between our present members of Congress and the delegates of the convention still to be elected. With the kind of electoral process we now have, chances are the chosen convention delegates may just be of the same caliber as those now inhabiting our Congress. So it is better to make do with what we already have.

But it is wrong for our Senators to think that when they examine the Constitution for possible amendments or revision, they are just performing their regular legislative function. Senator Richard Gordon and his committee members are off tangent in treating amendment or revision of the Constitution as an "ordinary piece of legislation". Framing or changing the fundamental law of the land is a more important and highly delicate function or power lodged in Congress separate and apart from its ordinary legislative function. Certainly, the function of passing a bill changing the name of a street cannot be equated with the function of proposing changes in the basic law of the land to which all other laws must conform. Even if Article 17, Section 1 does not expressly say so, Congress is acting as a special body that has traditionally been denominated as a "Constituent Assembly" when it tackles Charter change. It would be better for our Senators to abandon this tack and just be more united and steadfast in maintaining the position that when the said Article requires votes of the members of Congress to adopt an amendment or revision, it means votes of the members of House of Representatives and votes of the Senators voting separately.

The way it looks, if we have to really change our charter Con Ass is the most viable, expeditious, least expensive and legal way of doing it. Malacañang knows and wants this method all along. But the Senate has thrown the gauntlet that somehow derailed the process. So GMA and her think tank foisted the People’s Initiative to push for the changes even if they are aware that the system of initiative is not legally feasible because of the lack or inadequacy of an implementing law and because it cannot be used to attain their desired drastic changes entailing revision of the entire Charter. Malacanang still went ahead with this obviously illegal step like they did in the CPR, E.O. 464 and Proclamation 1017 not necessarily expecting a favorable Supreme Court ruling but more as a ploy for the Senate to change its adamant stand. It is a clever move to impress upon the Senate that it may be forfeiting its vital role in Charter change if it allows the people’s "express train" to trample on our fundamental law with changes that are not fully studied, explained and understood by them. The gambit paid off as the Senate appears to be more cooperative now. And the Senate must not take offense for this ploy as it is good for the country anyway.

But the Senate must not forfeit its role in the system of checks and balances. It must scrutinize closely the proposed changes particularly the transitory provisions. Changes must likewise refer only to those which are extremely necessary to cope with the fast changing globalization. They should be gradual rather than drastic. A shift to the parliamentary system must stand on solid grounds and sound reasons rather than merely to advance the hidden agenda of some ambitious politicians. It is the highest act of statesmanship if the Senate agrees to the replacement of both Houses with a unicameral assembly which may be done initially instead of immediate shift to the parliamentary system. Finally and most importantly members of both chambers acting as a constituent assembly must include a provision disqualifying themselves from aspiring for any position under the amended Charter. This is best way to earn the people’s respect and convince them that the changes adopted are for the country’s best interest.

* * *

>E-mail at: [email protected]