Why only Revgov can change the Constitution

Some years back I followed committee hearings and debate on the constitutional amendment in Congress. It was clear that given the provisions on an amendment by the 1987 Constitution it cannot be amended constitutionally. Chairman Victor Ortega, a good friend, said to me something 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.

That goes for the present debate on whether we should have a con-con or a con-ass. It is a waste of time. The same lame excuses will be pulled out of the hat – that the incumbent president just wants to extend his or her term,

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. I have gone through People’s initiatives –The first during Ramos’ time but the Supreme Court had the final say, “There was no enabling law.” I was able to get copies of the hearings in Congress that proved there was an enabling law. This was almost at the end Cory Aquino’s term and it was marked as urgent.

There was an enabling law. One or two of the justices knew it but they were overwhelmed. One conveniently left the country when it was time to vote.

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, RA 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 was asked to go all over the country to bring the message to the people. In other words, this was the process that would overcome the objection that the people did not understand the amendments being proposed.

In all the 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. The young girls assisting in the committee suggested why don’t we have a people’s initiative over a simple issue.: Do the Senate and the House vote separately?

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.

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.

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. The Senate will not allow it.

Constitutional reform cannot be done because the 1987 Constitution cannot be reformed or changed without changing the provision of amendments first. Never has the saying been truer 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. Given this background, the conflict between the organizers of the Madrid summit and Revgov are wasting their time.