Although their surrender was packaged as a statesmanlike concession to all who were outraged by their attempt to ram ConAss through Congress, they came across not so much as profiles in courage, but as avid practitioners of cut-and-run pragmatism.
This ignominious capitulation by ConAss proponents, far from putting closure on an issue that has divided the nation, actually complicates it considerably. That is if you happen to be a staunch Chacha supporter who once entertained illusions that the time had finally come for constitutional reform.
But if you never liked Chacha in the first place, then you would be excused your joyful delirium over the two to zero score, so far, against Chacha. You’re also probably convinced that Chacha is, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water and that the House’s constitutional convention "ultimatum" to the Senate is positively hilarious.
Charter change is, decidedly, in limbo. The Senate is not likely to cave in to Speaker Joe’s ultimatum. ConCon will not be set to coincide with the 2007 polls, whether held in May or November, or anytime soon. There is, it seems, neither time nor money available for constitutional reform.
The perception is taking hold that despite the 1987 Constitution’s theoretical prescription of three methods to propose amendments to the Charter, the only method with any realistic chance of getting off the ground is a grossly expensive, arguably overrated and historically flawed constitutional convention.
What does the sudden retreat from ConAss make of those who stood on the floor to argue the case for a constituent assembly, sans the Senate? While that stance may have struck some, certainly the Senators, as being outlandish, I believe it raised genuine questions of constitutional law, which need to be finally resolved by the Supreme Court.
Joe’s advisers clearly failed to anticipate the public outrage in reaction to the House push for ConAss. Did they also forget their own hype about how the people overwhelmingly craved Chacha, that the public response to the recent people’s initiative exercise was one of massive and spontaneous support? Where was that massive support, when it was most needed?
People power is alive and well? ConAss was unpopular? But whatever became of the brave principle that while it is important for a politician to be popular, it is more important that he be right?
Further, what happens to those eloquent arguments of Representatives Pichay, Villafuerte and Cagas on the "clear language and intent" of Section 1 of Article XVII of the Constitution? Was that all hot air?
It now appears certain that the people will be denied a definitive Supreme Court ruling on precisely what the Constitution means when it allows proposed amendments of the organic law by a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress.
We won’t know, for some time it seems, whether the Constitution still requires, as it once expressly did, that the proposals be approved by both the House and the Senate meeting jointly and voting separately. Or whether Pichay, Villafuerte, Cagas and company are correct that since the Constitution makes no mention of either a joint session or separate voting, the House may propose amendments or revisions on its own, provided the three-fourths vote is based on the total number of Senators and Representatives.
The answers to these valid questions must remain in the doldrums.
But is it possible the majority is simply engaged in a clever strategic withdrawal? Perhaps the majority coalition fled the battlefield to save its collective political life, but intends to return to fight on another, more auspicious, day?
This pretense is, in my view, downright disingenuous. It also ignores recent history. The fact is, every time a leader has mustered the political will to propose Charter change, his motives and patriotism have been impugned. That’s every time, mind you.
In the two occasions after World War II that we amended or "revised" the Constitution, the country was turned on its head, public protests notwithstanding.
The amendment of the 1935 Constitution by a constitutional convention was exploited by a closet autocrat scheming to eventually impose martial rule. After martial law was imposed on the nation, an entirely new Constitution was approved by public acclamation. Our Supreme Court then accommodated this process by ruling that there was no more obstacle to the coming into force of the 1973 Constitution.
The 1987 Constitution was written not by a constitutional convention but by "commissioners" appointed by a post-Marcos revolutionary government, and "approved" in a plebiscite conducted while the Cory Aquino revolutionary government held power.
In 1997 and today, 2006, there have been attempts to amend the Constitution. The 1997 attempt sought the lifting of term limits, but crashed and burned in the wake of the Santiago ruling that the purported enabling law was "inadequate."
A 2006 exercise in people’s initiative was also aborted, not because the enabling law was deemed inadequate, but because the Supreme Court saw Constitutional violations in the process of procuring signatures to the initiative petition. But in its resolution of a motion to reconsider its decision in the Sigaw ng Bayan case, the Court noted that 10 Justices had ruled that the enabling law was, after all, adequate.
The 1997 and 2006 (as well as, arguably, the still-born 2000) attempts stand accused of being tools of incumbents bent on perpetuating themselves in power.
Rather than beating a hasty retreat, the majority congressmen should have demonstrated the courage of their convictions and let the matter reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling on what the Constitution really envisions in regard to amendment proposals originating from the House of Representatives.
The House leadership should have expected history to repeat itself. It should have hunkered down for a long siege by whoever would cast them in the role of rogues and demons, even if the encircling hordes were to be led by a united front of bishops, leftists, assorted radicals, and the leading lights of civil society.
That, in my book, is what political will and political courage are all about. But these virtues, it would seem, are in alarmingly short supply among those who purport to be our leaders. I guess this is why the country is in the dung heap it’s in.