It is in this vein that the Coalition for Charter Change Now has taken up Mandanas’ proposals for constitutional reform. He believes that Section 1, Article XVII empowers Congress to propose amendments without having to resort to constituent assembly. In a roundtable discussion last Thursday organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and advocates for constitutional reform, Mandanas presented his case. He said constitutional amendments or revisions ‘may be proposed’ by Congress, by a vote of three fourths of all its members or by a constitutional convention. Legal and constitutional experts present agreed it is worth trying.
After Congress passes the last of the Arroyo government’s fiscal measures, moratorium on discussions on charter change will be over. That was the gentleman’s agreement between President GMA and Congress, economic bills first and then charter change. Going by the legislative calendar, as House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles told reporters recently, Congress would tackle the proposals around August. That may be too late. The roundtable discussants agreed, as a body, that Mandanas should pursue his strategy. However, this should not preclude other ways to amend the Constitution, Rep. Constantino Jaraula, chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments told the group. The House will continue with its efforts for a joint session with the Senate. Indeed, it is ready to make the necessary compromises to get the Senate on board.
Former Rep. Eduardo Nachura, former chairman of the House committee who moderated the roundtable discussions said whatever method would succeed, the overwhelming sentiment of the group was to push and keep pushing the envelope for charter change. There could be no other time but now. August may be too late. By that time, early bird politicians will already be looking forward to the 2007 elections. It would be futile to propose reforms when the money-making machines of the status quo start to roll. It would crush reforms that get in the way.
On the other hand, if discussions start immediately on the Mandanas proposals it could forestall any attempt for extralegal solutions. The restlessness among the public is palpable. Unless the initiative for change is wrested from hotheads, it will be catastrophic and it will go downhill all the way for the country.
Constitutional reform has been strengthened by the failure of Congress to pass urgently needed legislation to stave off an economic crisis. That failure has stoked the fires of discontent. It is now widely accepted that a shift to parliamentary system which fuses the executive and legislative functions is necessary to avert damaging gridlocks. Moreover it is a democratic version that would enable fast track reforms as envisioned by a council of leaders or a junta proposed by left and rightist extremists. To my mind the most important aspect of a parliamentary government is to be able to remove the head of government at any time with a no-confidence vote. That is not possible with a junta or a council of leaders which arrogates upon itself dictatorial powers.
On federalism, Mandanas’ proposals would create more autonomous regions based on the principle of ‘subsidiarity’. This means that matters should be handled by the lowest competent authority. National or central authority should only have a subsidiary function, performing those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Indeed, subsidiarity is the essential feature of federalism.
Perhaps the least acceptable to the group was the proposal to change the term of office of all local elective officials, except barangay (village) officers, from three years to four years. Although a case can be made for its soundness with the country’s coffers empty and the instability and waste of frequent elections, critics will pounce on it as self-interested coming as it does from lawmakers.
The Mandanas method would bypass discussions whether constitutional amendments should be by convention or by constituent assembly. Associate Justice Regalado Maambong, formerly COMELEC commissioner and delegate to the 1987 Constitutional Commission, agreed that it is possible to propose amendments to the Constitution piecemeal in the ordinary course of lawmaking. In a paper distributed to the discussants, he said Congress can make the proposals with a vote of 3/4 of all its members. It is debatable whether it means 3/4 of Senate and 3/4 of the House, voting separately. The choice of method of proposal is discretionary on the legislature, he added.
Rep. Gilbert Teodoro suggested a referendum. At any other time, I would have rejected the idea because that would be passing the buck to the public a duty of the lawmakers. But as Justice Maambong recalled, People’s Initiative is a method enshrined in the Constitution. Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact legislation. Up to this day, debate continues on whether there is an enabling legislation even if the Supreme Court knocked it down in 1997. If we fuse Teodoro’s suggestion and invoke the spirit of people’s initiative then we may have a powerful formula to achieve constitutional reform. A referendum following the model of people’s initiative can simultaneously support initiatives in Congress. The election code for People’s Initiative requires percentages of the registered voters in congressional districts. It is better to make people sign a petition rather than provoke mob assemblies in the streets, a scenario the left would dearly love as an opportunity to seize power.
Others in the roundtable discussions were Dr. F. Macaranas of AIM, Ponciano Intel of La Salle, Rep. Mike Romero, Amb. Raul Goco, Amb. Jose Romero, Brian Gonzales, Marietta Goco, Dr. Mahid Mutilan, Gov. Farouk Hussin, Mr. Tillah, Rep.Juan Edgardo Angara, civic leader Eliseo Ocampo, labor leader Jose Villegas, representatives from the Leagues of Municipalities and Governors, Arlene Arnaldo and Marivic Castillo from the House committees.