With the defeat of the people’s initiative in the Supreme Court last week, the petitioners are going through the motions of asking the tribunal to reverse its decision. But the noise coming from Malacañang in recent days indicates that the administration sees little hope in the motion for reconsideration.
Charter change proponents are now focusing on a so-called Plan B: convening Congress into a constituent assembly. Standing in the way is the Senate, whose members do not like the idea of having their chamber abolished in the shift to a parliamentary system. The resistance of senators to Cha-cha has triggered debate on whether the House of Representatives can exclude the Senate from a constituent assembly. The debate arises from the wording of the Constitution, which requires a vote of "Congress" to convene such an assembly. Can "Congress" refer to the House alone, where most of the members support Charter change? The issue is likely to end up again with the Supreme Court.
Even with wording in the Constitution that is open to different interpretations, however, proponents of a constituent assembly have nothing to lose by wooing the support of senators. There are sound arguments for amending the Constitution. And there are sound arguments for Cha-cha through a constituent assembly, foremost of which is that it produces results faster. Millions of pesos in taxpayers’ money can also be saved because there is no need to elect assembly members and spend for their upkeep while they deliberate on Charter changes. Senators have said they are not opposed to Cha-cha per se; they must show that their opposition does not stem chiefly from self-preservation.
At least one senator has already said there is hope in his chamber for the constituent assembly. For proponents of Plan B, there’s no harm in trying to win the Senate’s support.