Here we go again

The coming days will be crucial to the promise of a new era for the Philippines. That is, if we are not misled with the so-called “three ways” of amending the 1987 Constitution.

I have said it before and constitutional experts agree that the first thing to do is to amend the amendment provision of the Constitution. It is not being talked about in that direction. We only have government officials saying that the issue of whether the Senate and the House can debate and vote separately or jointly is a matter they can resolve. Simply put Congress can amend the Constitution unconstitutionally but the President cannot assume Revgov to amend the Constitution.

This important detail was omitted in the rush to finish the 1987 Constitution. That is not an excuse. It is unconstitutional. Experts should not make the rules of government, the people should. That was the heart of Iceland’s crowdsourcing for a constitution. Different sectors were represented even the handicapped in a general assembly of ordinary people called “the crowd.” That was the spirit in which its new constitution was made. It was all inclusive. The job of experts was to put together the elements into a simple framework understood by all.

Let us review the different attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. First we had the “Cha-cha,” then we had the “Con-con.” It may sound harmless to use these abbreviations but I suspect something more sinister is behind it. These terms subliminally make us trivialize constitutional reform. The effect is to make fun of it and to a largely unthinking public Charter change as Cha-cha or con-con have become laughing matters. Those who want the Filipino nation stuck in the mud of status quo can only watch in glee.

I meet with Charter change advocates every now and then to be updated on events and issues relating to it. Recently I have noticed that some who were for constituent assembly have changed their minds. They say, echoing politicians’ statements, that “it is too late now.” Better if we just support “con-con.” Besides, they add, that is what the bishops, the Makati Business Club and of course, the senators, all presidential wannabes want so we will just follow them. If we are to change the Charter it would have to wait until after the next presidential elections.

The church-big business combined has discouraged intelligent discussion on the merits and demerits of either mode.

If we are more sensible the first issue is cost. We complain about the multi-billion cost of our legislature and yet we are not being told that by opting for a constitutional convention we would in fact be doubling the costs because in effect we create another legislature infinitely more powerful than the present one. Moreover it will make proposals for change from tabula rasa. The convention is empowered to propose anything and everything subject only to a plebiscite. The saving grace is there would still be a plebiscite and it can be turned down by the people. But this would be true with proposals from a constituent assembly as well. It is also subject to a plebiscite and can equally be turned down by the people.

The answer to whether a constituent assembly will be used for term extension is subject to the plebiscite and therefore the vote of the people.

Charter change opponents especially the senators will never admit that personal ambition is behind their insistence on a constitutional convention.

I will put my bets on the table. It is a given when the presidential candidates will have spent billions for their campaign. There will be only one agenda – the return on investment.

So why is a constitutional convention getting the upper hand, making people believe that it is better because it does not have the self-interest of incumbents? I agree. In their stead will be the wives, brothers or sisters, any relatives representing their interests.

Its proponents would have us believe that a con-con would be more representative of the people. But that is only in theory. But will it really? A convention organized under the present system will be the same creature as the Congress they allegedly deride – politicians and their relatives and families coming from the same pool with guaranteed funds and a political network not within the reach of ordinary people wanting to be delegates.

Those who might take time to dig deeper into the alleged virtues of a constitutional convention will soon realize it is nothing more than a big con (con) job. The trouble is if we wait until this happens that will be too late. The sooner we get our Constitution reformed the better for the country. That is the real change we are aching for. But it requires leadership and more importantly nerves of steel with the baying wolves of our oligarchic status quo poised to pounce if it is attempted at all. We elected Digong Duterte because of his strong qualities and we will be with him when he uses it.

The Commission for Charter Change appointed by President GMA worked on, debated and voted on three proposals which was submitted to Congress: shift to parliamentary government, evolution into a federalist structure and a more liberal economic framework that would attract investments. Some skeptics did not believe such changes were necessary and can be equally done under the present presidential system.

I would recommend to them Dennis C. Mueller’s Constitutional Democracy. It is a comprehensive study that ‘examines how the basic constitutional structure of governments affects what they can accomplish.’ I believe that should be the perspective in analyzing why the Philippines needs a parliamentary federal system.

It is a response to problems specific to the country. But this is true not only in the Philippines. Mueller’s book addresses the concerns of many countries including the United States and those of the former Soviet Bloc that are said to be “increasingly disillusioned about government’s fundamental ability to reach solutions for domestic problems.” This relationship between structure and effective governance has led countries to rewrite their constitutions.