Constitutional reform is not something to laugh about

In one of the debates on Charter change among members of the Committee for Constitutional Amendments during the 14th Congress, Chairman Victor Ortega said something unforgettable or should be unforgettable. It made me understand why all efforts at reforming the Constitution were futile.

“This Constitution is so flawed that even its provision for amendments has to be amended,” he said in reply to those who opposed it. If this is the only thing we do in this Congress, we would have done the best thing we could ever do for this country. Think about it. Think of how many times constitutional reforms have been attempted since President Cory. It could not be amended during President Ramos’ time, in President Erap’s time or in President Arroyo’s time. We should ask why and how this has been made impossible while other countries are able to amend their constitutions when it is called for? That should give the clue that something else besides local partisan politics is frustrating it.

The same lame excuses will be pulled out of the hat — that the incumbent president just wants to extend his or her term, let us have elections first (May 2010) before Charter change, when it is done at the beginning of a term it is too early, when it is done at the end of the term it is too late etc. etc.

The people’s initiative that was supposed to have been enshrined by people power revolution in the 1987 Constitution has proven to be impossible after all. An attempt was made during Ramos’ time but the Supreme Court said there was no enabling law. That was not true. There was one and the justices knew it. All one needs to do is dig it up in the Congressional archives (I have a copy of this) when President Cory herself certified the bill urgent and it became a law before she ended her term. Senator Raul Roco, the sponsor of the enabling law, R. A. 6750 appeared in court to testify that it was adequate. It was accompanied by Comelec’s implementing rules and regulations and ready for immediate use. It lost by one vote that would make it seem that the decision went through a fair process. I have since changed my mind on just what went on during the proceedings and the final judgment. We had been cooked.

President Erap was wiser. He tried also his hand at constitutional reform but concentrated the efforts to the economic provisions. Still, because of the threat that any reform might lead to others, it never went beyond a study committee as far as I can remember.

It was President Arroyo who took it more seriously and appointed a constitutional commission that would debate and study what reforms were needed. After a working draft from the group was voted upon, the Concom as it was called were asked to go all over the country to bring the message to the people. In each of these consultations the audiences were also asked to vote whether they agreed with the proposed amendments. There was overwhelming sympathy and there are records to prove the results of the nationwide consultations.

The draft was submitted to the President and it was expected that she would (as far as I know) forward it to Congress as an input in their deliberations. Like President Ramos before her, President GMA understood that the presidential system had to be changed if we were to catch up with our more progressive neighbors. Elections under the presidential system that we have adopted would never move the country forward no matter how well intentioned or qualified our leaders were. The system itself precluded stability and continuity.

But probably the most damning of excuses to stop Charter change is the absence of the words jointly or separately in approving amendments by three fourths of Congress. Other provisions specifically state how Congress with its two houses would work, meet or vote jointly or separately but the 1987 Constitution is silent on the provision on amendments. We have just seen Congress working together to proclaim a president and a vice president. The omission to state clearly how Congress was to work out amendments was fatal. It was either a grievous mistake or maliciously intended. The result is that as a nation we have been disabled from amending our Constitution ever. This should be answered by one of the principals if not the principal author of the 1987 Constitution – the Jesuit Father Joaquin Bernas who is regarded as an eminent constitutionalist.

If I were him, I would be more circumspect in laughing at former President and now Congresswoman Gloria Arroyo for filing Resolution No. 8 in yet another try at constitutional reform because it is he who owes an explanation to the Filipino people.

I am surprised that on the first day of her term as congresswoman of Pampanga, former President Gloria Arroyo should file House Resolution (HR) 8, which proposes amendments to the 1987 Constitution through a Constitutional Convention, or con-con knowing the history and background of every attempt to reform the Constitution.

How could she not have known that asking the 15th Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments with a vote of two-thirds of all its members is not possible? Given the history of all attempts to reform our Constitution, you would think that Mrs. Arroyo should have learned her lessons. Constitutional reform cannot be done because the 1987 Constitution cannot be reformed or changed without changing the provision on amendments first. Never has the saying been more true than it is today that we either change the Constitution or face a revolution. The Philippine nation is inching closer and closer to a dead end when the only way to change and reform would have to be done outside the Constitution.

* * *

Despite the correction made by the Aquino government on its Memorandum No. 1, there was chaos in some offices. It may be that Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 1 is being fine-tuned and there was no mistake about it. With two memorandums of the same number, the government officials concerned did not know which to follow. At the PCSO, they are asking what the dismissed are to do until July 31st. Are they allowed to hold meetings or sign papers? How and to whom do they turn over the work that they have been doing? Some of the tasks are matters of life and death that cannot wait on how the new government wants to implement its first memorandum.