Constitutions are nothing more than a set of rules that define a community’s political institutions. By definition all communities, whether a dictatorship or a republic have a constitution. It could be an unwritten one such as it is in the UK or one that is consciously designed as it is with our own. We designed the rules by which we should be governed. It is ‘contrived’. That cannot be undone. The underpinning of constitution-making is the belief that the kind of institutions engendered by the collection of rules we make up can make a difference, but it does not mean that these inevitably do so.
I think this paradox leads some to be skeptical about the enterprise. There are those who would block any attempt to reform the rules because they just do not want change. This is contemptible. But there are others who see no reason for change if in the end, the very same changes will suffer the same fate of the very institutions to be changed. This is equally sad but more honest.
The nayers in the Concom belong to either category. There is no question that there is overwhelming support for charter change among the 40 odd members of the Concom, the constitutional consultative group appointed by the President. The hangers on to the status quo are easier to refute because the effects of a badly conceived constitution are all around us. The present crisis is too obvious to be denied.
It is the second which is more difficult to handle. It strikes at the very heart of human effort. Can we ever really reform? Or if we did reform, will it always remain so? In other words, is there a fool proof solution to the infirmities of our constitution? I would be hard put to answer that. But it remains true that we either go forward or stay where we are. Although no inevitable charter change can move us forward. In other words there is an element of risk. It is not so with staying where we are. It can only become worse. With the defects all around us, it would be foolish not to change.
On the other hand without naysayers the advocates will have no measure by which to strengthen their weak convictions. The Concom members will need all the courage and knowledge to muster when they go out and consult with the public at large sometime next week. But things are looking good. For example, on the issue whether we will retain the presidential or shift to parliamentary, there is only one against the parliamentary system: Mayor Gerardo Espina, and he has said he is willing to be convinced. He has given me a leaflet entitled "Let us now amend the Constitution". Is that a double game? It remains to be seen.
Happily, consultations with the public have already began and those who wish to follow the proceedings should look at www.lcp.org.ph, the website of local authority. League of Cities Secretary General and Calbayog City Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento says that among 30 mayors, all were unanimously for charter change. On another question, 11 were for parliamentary but only 1 for presidential.
I don’t know what is behind Kampi’s claim that they are no longer supporting JDV’s charter change. Is it being used as a tool for leverage in the scramble for positions in the reorganization of the House after the failed impeachment?
If Kampi president Rep. Ronaldo Puno claims they are merely ’awaiting’ Concom discussions before they decide on whether or not to support charter change, I bring good tidings or bad news depending on what is intended. Contrary to reports, the Concom is well on target to finish its deliberations and consultations with varying sectors of the public. Since its creation last August 19 by EO 453, it has elected its officers, formulated its rules for debate, and divided itself into committees in the major areas for amendment: form of government, structure of the republic, and the national patrimony and economic provisions under the able leadership of former UP President Jose Abueva. There are other committees but these three are the most crucial. The committee debates and studies have been made easier because there are already several working drafts.
I can see that if ever there should be any difficulty, it will not come from within the commission but from without among those who would use the commission for their self-interest. If that should happen, it will be easy to point at the culprits and there should be several dozen witnesses, all members of the Concom. It goes without saying that the most difficult study for the commission will be on the transitory provisions which will decide the fate of President GMA.
I would not be surprised if beneath the friendly alliance and happy camaraderie, the knives may be soon out. When the reckoning comes, we can only hope that the best interest of our country should be on top of all motives. We can only hope that protagonists will have only the country’s interest in mind.
On a personal item, Pampanga Mayor Oscar Rodriguez sits next to me in the plenary which has been arranged in alphabetical order. It reminds me how the world turns around. Rodriguez used to be the committee chairman on amendments when we were working on a people’s initiative. On my left sits former Senator Vicente Paterno, a former colleague of my husband Ambassador Alberto Pedrosa during pre-martial law days in the Meralco. He heads the Committee on Economic Provisions. (By the way, he told me he has quit all his directorial posts with the Lopezes so he is not accused of conflict of interest!)