More questions about con-con

Senator Richard Gordon sent me email to "clarify" his position on a constitutional convention as the method to amend the Constitution. He reiterates his opposition to a con-con, to wit:

"From the very beginning, I have been consistently in favor of Congress acting as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution so this should not come as a surprise. However, I do not think that the time is right for Charter change and the issue of timeliness takes precedence over the mode of changing the Constitution.

"The atmosphere for Charter change is extremely poisoned right now. The manner in which Charter change has been shamelessly pursued, initially by people’s initiative and lately by the House of Representatives claiming to act as the Congress even without the Senate, is truly appalling...

"While I am for Charter change by Congress acting as a constituent assembly, this must be done right, at the proper time, for the right reasons, and within the legal means under the Constitution.

"Furthermore, if we were to do Charter change, I am only in favor of specific amendments to the Constitution in order to fine-tune it. I do not want another revision of the whole document to be sold as a panacea to our people, because it is not…The key is that our people must understand the Constitution."

It would be instructive to compare Senator Dick’s position with GMA’s recent "three realities" speech. These "realities," she said, are: "One, that the people accept the need for Charter change to overhaul the system; two, that there is a need for a unified national consensus on the means and timetable; and three, that this is a platform commitment of the administration that will be pursued with urgency and fervor."

Some people wonder why, not long after she declared that this is not the right time for Cha-cha, she now says that Charter change is urgent and must be fervently pursued. But if you contemplate her "three realities" carefully, what she’s really saying is that the rumors of the demise of Charter change are greatly, even grievously, exaggerated. Charter change still lives and breathes, especially in the hearts of its true believers.

However, Charter change cannot be forced down people’s throats. People must agree on the means and the timetable. Otherwise, Cha-cha may divide this nation, rather than unite it. Far from flip-flopping, GMA may have actually hit upon a more pragmatic and palatable approach. The con-ass attempted by the House of Representatives came across as having as much subtlety as a runaway, rampaging bulldozer.

Dick’s clarification, when contrasted with GMA’s "three realities" oration, underscores the reasons why this country is so divided, so agonized, on Cha-cha.

For instance, GMA maintains that people accept the need to "overhaul" the 1987 Constitution. Dick says, on the other hand, that all we need is "fine-tuning," not a revision of the whole document. In this connection, the question could well be asked: Would a proposal to abolish the Senate be an overhaul or mere fine-tuning?

Pulse Asia’s Prof. Pepe Miranda says that although more than 60 percent of people polled say they do not want Cha-cha, what they’re really saying is that they do not trust the people who are talking Cha-cha, that they suspect hidden agendas, and that they basically do not understand why Charter change is so urgent, considering other national priorities.

Dick says that the atmosphere is too poisoned for Cha-cha to prosper. In batting for a national "consensus" on the timetable, GMA seems to agree with him. She implicitly acknowledges that, at the moment, there is no such consensus.

As to why there is no consensus yet on Cha-cha, Prof. Miranda’s reading of the real sentiments of people is illuminating, even as it raises troubling questions of public trust in leaders in general.

GMA and Dick share a deep aversion to con-con, albeit for different reasons. One reason GMA doesn’t want a con-con, I suspect, is the cost. Estimates vary from a low of P1.2 billion, if elections are synchronized and only one delegate is chosen from each legislative district, to a high of about P10 B, if separate elections are held for two delegates per district.

Another is the time that will be needed for a con-con to finish its work. True, there are suggestions that an enabling law implementing con-con specify a time limit, and that that limit be tied to the available funding for the exercise.

There is no assurance, however, that a con-con would consider itself bound by time limits of any kind. In the 1971 con-con, Congress threatened to withhold funds in order to quicken the pace of con-con proceedings. But eventually, Congress backed down and wound up providing the needed funding.

In law, a constitutional convention can propose any amendment it wants, and take as much time as it wishes. If Congress shuts down funding, the con-con can simply stop working and explain that the process is too serious to be unduly rushed. That explanation is easier to sell to the public than legislators who seem to be harassing hard-working elected delegates engaged in the valuable work of improving the Constitution.

Dick wants a con-ass where the Senate is an active participant. However, I don’t see that happening under present circumstances, not when the House wants to abolish the Senate, and the Supreme Court has been deprived the opportunity to rule on issues raised by the language of Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution, including whether the House can act on its own without the Senate.

Dick’s preference for "fine-tuning" the Constitution is interpreted by some as a signal to the House that a con-ass with Senate participation would agree to review only the economic provisions of the Charter, but not any proposals to restructure government.

But the House has become a prisoner of its own rhetoric, and I doubt that it will yield an inch to the Senate. Only the Supreme Court can untie this legal Gordian Knot.

At the end of the day, while most people seem to agree that the current Constitution doesn’t work, they oppose Charter change at present because of a serious lack of trust in the proponents. The challenge to the President is to convince the people that Cha-cha is motivated by national, not personal, interest. But first, it will be necessary to engage in confidence-building measures.

Recent polls suggest that people think that the virtues of Charter change are clouded by hidden agendas, including perpetuating incumbents in office. Whether or not GMA can reverse that perception may dictate where Cha-cha ultimately ends up.

A Merry and Holy Christmas to one and all!.