Con-ass for power's sake?

Having thrown out the latest impeachment complaint against PGMA, administration congressmen are currently busy campaigning for sufficient signatures to revive the controversial cha-cha through a constituent assembly. There are now 167 proponents of this move and only less than 30 more are needed. Assuming this number will be raised will it be all systems go?

The 1987 Constitution says an amendment or revision of this body of laws can be done "by Congress, as a constituent assembly, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, voting separately."

On the basis of this provision most legal minds, including a good number of senators, believe that approval by Congress to convene a con-ass should be done by three-fourths of all the members voting in separate sessions. Administration congressmen, however, believe that the voting should be done in a joint session.

Such interpretation is perhaps based on a provision in the 1935 Constitution which stipulates that Congress shall convene in "a joint session assembled" for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. The 1987 Constitution however does not contain such prescription although it says that Congress shall act on the issue "as a constituent assembly." The question is, does Congress cease to be a constituent assembly if it meets separately and vote separately?

It is clear that the stand of PGMA's henchmen in Congress is motivated by political consideration. Because the House is controlled by the President's sympathizers, the issue will certainly be resolved in their favor if voted on in a joint session.

Assuming that the House could secure the required number of signatures, can that body legally convene a con-ass? It is doubtful if it can because without the Senate's concurrence the House action appears untenable. Despite this, the strategy of the cha-cha advocates seems to be towards convening a joint session and vote on the measure with or without the opposition senators.

This will be a controversial issue, of course, and as usual it would go up to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the SC will uphold the constitutional provision on this matter. Although vaguely stated and therefore controversial, a sensible reading of it points to a separate session of both Houses from each of which shall be computed the three-fourth votes required.

As we observe our lawmakers spending their precious time trying to revive the cha-cha controversy, we cannot help but ask: Why the urgency? For more than ten years we have managed to get along with the present Constitution, why tinker with it now? The motive seems clear: This is part of the conspiracy to extend PGMA's (and the congressmen's) term of office.

Malacañang's spokesmen are saying the President has nothing to do with the move, and that she has no plans to try to keep her seat after 2010. But her silence on the issue has been taken to mean that what her cohorts are doing has had her imprimatur. By 2010 PGMA shall have wielded power for ten years, equivalent to more than two terms under the old Constitution. Certainly, this should have been enough for any president. But is this enough for her?

Most Filipinos hope it is. Even those who voted for her in 2004 believe it is time for her to call it quits. She has had her appointment with destiny. She has done her part in making this country survive through these trying years. Despite the threat of Muslim secessionists, ideological rebels, and criminal syndicates, the life and limb of the average Filipinos is fairly safer compared to that of other people in conflict-ridden countries.

It's true many are still poor. It's true many are still seeking jobs abroad. It's true bureaucratic irregularities have been a stigma on her leadership. But when viewed in its totality, looking at what has been done vis-à-vis what is get to be done, still PGMA's leadership is at par or even above par with that of some of her predecessors.

Power, unfortunately, tends to loosen some screws in the minds of those who wield it. Look at Nero of Rome or Stalin of Russia, or Mugabe of Zimbabwe or our own home-grown despot Marcos. These people had had a tight grip on power, found it a great thing … and to hell with the people!

Will this too be the case with PGMA?