But why are administration congressmen in a state of frenzy on Cha-Cha? And why are they so headstrong towards Constituent Assembly as a strategy for change?
The answer to the first question could be the eagerness of the lawmakers to have their terms extended. If constitutional changes can be agreed before May 2007 the likelihood is that an interim period would be declared during which the congressmen can continue serving as such pending the holding of a plebiscite and the election of assemblymen. No election means no expenses. Imagine the stash of cash the candidates can have for themselves! Besides, there is no certainty about the outcome of the polls. Considering the temper of the masa towards Malacañang, it is possible many of them would suffer the fate of President Bush's party-mates. So who would not get excited with No-el?
As for Con-Ass the members of the House are of course head-over-heels for it. And why not? The fate of the country would be in their hands. They would be like the gods in Mt. Olympus dictating what kind of weather will prevail over the land. And who can prevent these honorable men from beefing up their group with stronger mandates and greater influence?
The merger of the Executive Office with the Legislative branch would be a ticket for Congress to wield a strong hand over the affairs of the state. With no senators as whistle blowers and with only a frail opposition, the embedding of lawmakers in the administrative machinery would mean happy days for all of them. For then they would have a say in crafting major projects and of course they would be in the forefront of implementation. Indeed, a parliamentary system would be a dream come true for our legislators.
The House is a gathering of perceptive people. But the congressmen's insistence for a Con-Ass despite a dubious constitutional provision betrays their myopic outlook. Three-fourths of Congress in a joint session? The Constitution does not say so. Each House, they should be reminded, is a separate entity. They are constituted separately, that's why they have their own house rules and are governed by their own set of officers. Whenever they vote on a legislation they do it separately and vote count is done in consideration of the members present in each house.
Deciding to amend or revise the Constitution through Con-Ass is similar to deciding on a proposed legislation. How come Cha-Cha champions are claiming that the magic number of three-fourths vote can be elicited from a joint session of Congress?
In the 1935 Constitution the provision for a joint session for the purpose of amending or revising the Constitution is stipulated. However, in the current Constitution no such provision is found. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Congress may convene in a joint session because what is not provided for should not be assumed.
Although the provision on the matter of proposing constitutional amendments or revisions is ambivalent, it is more logical to interpret it following what has been practiced by both houses. It is most likely that the framers of the 1986 Constitution specifically omitted the phrase "joint session" because they wanted the session to be convened separately.
From all indications the House of Representatives is bent on convening itself into a Constituent Assembly before May next year, with or without the senators. This would certainly trigger a court action with the Supreme Court. What will be the verdict? By that time Chief Justice Panganiban would be out. Would the temper of that body be different this time?
The 1986 Constitution certainly needs to be amended or revised. But not the way the gentlemen of the House want it. The truth is that the Lower House, like the Senate, has lost its credibility. To entrust the future of this country to a cabal of politicians many of whom have self-serving agenda is the height of stupidity.