Strident

On second reading, the “manifesto” signed by all 24 senators against the ongoing people’s initiative for Charter change was unduly strident. Because of that, it threatens to put the chamber on collision course with the House of Representatives.

The core of this “manifesto” reads: “While it seems simple, the goal is apparent to make it easier to revise the Constitution by eliminating the Senate from the equation. It is an obvious prelude to further amendments, revisions or even an overhaul of our entire Constitution.”

“Eliminating the Senate from the equation” is an overstatement. The senators will not be purged from the process. But if the people’s initiative gains ground, the Senate could be obliged to sit as equals with their colleagues in the House and vote jointly as a single constituent assembly.

The Senate, of course, prefers to sit as a separate chamber, voting on their own. The senators will then be privileged legislators whose opinion is weightier than their presumably lesser colleagues in the “lower” house.

This “manifesto” overshoots the runway by describing the people’s initiative as a “sinister and underhanded attempt to change the Constitution by exploiting our democratic process.”

Be reminded that the 1987 Constitution enshrines people’s initiative as the third method for amending the Charter, after a constitutional convention and a constituent assembly. It is easy to characterize any people’s initiative as “sinister and underhanded.” But that characterization is unfair.

A people’s initiative is necessarily a mass undertaking. The Constitution puts a tough hurdle for it to progress: verified signatures from 12 percent of all registered voters with a minimum of three percent from every district. That translates into collecting about eight million signatures of registered voters.

To gather the required signatures, a broad and open campaign needs to be launched. No effort could be more democratic – and more transparent, since the signatures need verification by the Comelec. It is unfair to simply dismiss a mass movement as “sinister and underhanded.” 

On a matter of grave national concern, the senators are being needlessly bombastic.

Given the high threshold set by the Constitution for a people’s initiative to prosper, the deployment of this method for constitutional reform requires a broad nationwide organization and a clear leadership focus. Reforming the defective constitutional order does not happen by spontaneous combustion.

Of course, the pressing demands of daily life such as high prices and rice shortages rank higher in the hierarchy of public concerns. The link between a defective constitutional order and the quality of life of our citizens requires complex discussion.

One might claim that our citizens are not prepared for such a discussion. But since the pressures of daily life will always be there, we will never be truly ready for such a discussion. This even as the failings of the constitutional order take their toll on the quality of life of our citizens.

Considering the steep requirements set by the Constitution for a people’s initiative to prosper, only the House of Representatives will have the ready mechanism to see it through. Composed of district representatives, only this chamber has the organizational reach to mobilize signatures from every locality.

Here lies the paradox the 1987 Constitution presents any group wanting constitutional reform. That reform effort will have to be led by the politicians, the same species that benefits from the imperfections of the prevailing constitutional order. By taking the lead in Charter change, our politicians must rise above their most immediate interests.

All past efforts at constitutional reform were stymied by the resistance of the Senate. That resistance is motivated by this institution’s jealous defense of its pelf and privilege. As far as the Senate is concerned, everything in the Constitution may be changed except the perpetuation of this chamber.

This is why, on all previous occasions, the Senate stood against reform. This is because they give primacy to their own institutional survival as if our democracy depended on that.

Some perceive that the Senate “manifesto” produced a constitutional crisis between the two chambers of this double-headed hydra we call Congress. Perhaps that, too, is overstated.

What we have is less than a constitutional crisis. What we have is an institutional crisis that could imaginably impede the world of the legislative branch of government.

Recognizing the possible consequence of this institutional crisis on the work of all of government, President BBM cancelled the meeting this week of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC). Instead, he met separately and behind closed doors the delegations of the Senate and the House.

We are not privy to what was agreed upon in those meetings. But the private meetings indicate the President’s appreciation of the possible political crisis arising from the Senate’s hyperventilating “manifesto.”

It is not likely the Senate will step back from the position the chamber took in its “manifesto.” For the senators, any process of Charter change that does not have them in a controlling position will be an existential threat.

It does not seem likely, too, that the House is ready to step back from its effort to introduce constitutional reforms by way of a constituent assembly where the two chambers vote jointly. For the congressmen, this is the only way to prevent Charter change from being held hostage by the senators.

Much as President BBM tried to maintain some distance between the Executive branch and the Charter change effort, he will have to intervene to prevent an institutional crisis.