The focus has ostensibly shifted to a constitutional convention. But is it possible that our "go-it-alone" gang in the House still has a few tricks up its sleeve?
The other day, I was reliably informed that however the Senate would react to that House "ultimatum" to agree to a constitutional convention, the House would meet this week, not as a constituent assembly to approve proposed amendments to the Constitution, but for the sole purpose of calling a constitutional convention.
The plan called for the approval of that resolution by a two-thirds vote of all the members of Congress, meaning the total number of all incumbent Senators and Representatives. If the Senate did not adopt a counterpart resolution, the House would take the position that a constitutional convention had nevertheless been validly called under Art. XVII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.
The Senate would obviously object to such a position since, like con-ass, the House would be acting alone, without regard to the Senate. That dispute would, of course, wind up in the Supreme Court.
There was another problem. If a constitutional convention were approved, a new enabling law, as well as appropriate funding legislation, would be required to handle the myriad of details usually arising from a national election for convention delegates. Additional funds would also be needed for the ensuing plebiscite to approve the amendments proposed by the convention.
There is no doubt that the House would be able to rush enactment of such an enabling law. But if, as expected, the Senate declined to participate for its own reasons, how would a new enabling law ever get passed?
One view in the House was that the existing election law could be utilized. However, a cursory reading of the Election Code, which does not cover election of delegates to a constitutional convention, shoots down this theory. Not to worry, this view assures us. The law passed by the House would take care of all the requirements.
How’s that again? A bill proposed in one chamber becomes law WITHOUT the participation of the other chamber? You might recall the argument that con-ass could approve proposed Charter amendments without the Senate. But it is difficult to understand that stance when legislation is involved, in the context of a bicameral legislature, where no law can be passed other than by the action of both chambers.
Yet another problem is timing. The proposal, apparently, is that con-con delegates be elected simultaneously with local officials in the May 2007 polls.
The May elections are about 6 months away. In that time, the candidates for delegates must be selected, apart from the candidates for the local positions up for grabs. The Commission on Elections must also be cranked up to include such delegates in the nomination, voting and counting processes. The impracticability of this scheme, brought about by its unseemly haste, is manifest.
Evidently, none of this is in the cards now. The House seems poised to cave in and call a formal halt to con-ass. Majority congressmen are distancing themselves from their combative "con-con, or we go back to con-ass" war cry vis a vis the Senate.
Majority stalwarts now say they have petitioned protesting religious groups to please help in convincing the Senate to agree naman to a con-con. It is also asking protesters to desist from burning them in effigy, or booing them on the House floor, since they have already given in naman to their demands to junk con-ass.
The House retreat from con-ass is touted as a patriotic sacrifice, a gesture of "sensitivity" to public opinion, even a concession gifted the nation in the spirit of Christmas. In reality, its capitulation is a desperate attempt to quiet a concerted outpouring of pent-up outrage in urban centers, while purveying the illusion that Cha-cha lives, albeit through a constitutional convention, instead of a constituent assembly.
This spin is unworthy of credence. Where was that vaunted sensitivity, that Christmas spirit, when earnest con-ass proponents manned the legal ramparts until well into the wee hours? Shouldn’t some majority congressmen have brought up this sensitivity, the Christmas spirit, before the process, rather than later when House leaders decided that the kitchen had gotten too hot? Was the majority so deep in slumber in la-la land that they did not sense the unpopularity of what they were about to do?
Joe de Venecia and his hapless majority do not seem to appreciate the extent of the wreckage they have wrought. They damaged their credibility by showing a lack of intestinal fortitude for battle, after months of loudly banging their spears on their shields. They gave positive proof of an institutional weakness from which they may not recover.
They, inexcusably, left legitimate Constitutional issues on the parameters of con-ass twisting in the wind. These issues are likely to resurface in the future, with no guidance from the courts to inform the debates that will break out then, debates that will probably be a rehash of the same arguments heard throughout this controversy.
Most of all, the House retreat has moved public discourse away from the process and content of the proposed changes. The fact is, Cha-cha is in disarray. Despite appearances, the real fight is no longer over PI, con-ass or con-con. It is over whether Charter change is needed at all. More people are now arguing that national attention should turn to urgent reforms which are doable without tinkering with the Constitution.
We have come full circle. Whether the Cha-cha turmoil of the last few months has taught us anything, whether the experience has made us wiser, more aware of our Constitution, or more knowledgeable of the nuances of the process of Charter change, I can’t say for sure. What is certain is that this House has disappointed a lot of people, particularly that silent majority that some surveys say are in favor of Cha-cha.
The House admirably took the lead in the Cha-cha battle. But when the going, as fully predicted, got tough, the self-proclaimed tough never got going. Instead, they held a press conference, and announced they would be sensitive to public opinion…then fled the field of battle. Someone should remind them of the penalty for desertion.