The big 'con (con) job'

First we had the “Cha-cha,” now we have the “Con-con.” It may sound harmless to use these abbreviations but I suspect something more sinister is behind it. These terms subliminally make us trivialize constitutional reform. The effect is to make fun of it and to a largely unthinking public Charter change as Cha-cha or con-con have become laughing matters. Those who want the Filipino nation stuck in the mud of status quo can only watch in glee.

I meet with Charter change advocates every now and then to be updated on events and issues relating to it. Recently I have noticed that some who were for constituent assembly have changed their minds. They say, echoing politicians’ statements, that “it is too late now”. Better if we just support “con-con”. Besides, they add, that is what the bishops, the Makati Business Club and of course, the senators, all presidential wannabes want so we will just follow them. If we are to change the Charter it would have to wait until after the presidential elections in 2010. The church-big business combine has discouraged intelligent discussion on the merits and demerits of either mode.

It is my opinion that with the hard times it would have been natural if we are more sensible that the first issue is cost. We complain about the multi-billion cost of our legislature and yet we are not being told that by opting for a constitutional convention we would in fact be doubling the costs because in effect we create another legislature infinitely more powerful than the present one. Moreover it will make proposals for change from tabula rasa. The convention is empowered to propose anything and everything subject only to a plebiscite. The saving grace is there would still be a plebiscite and it can be turned down by the people. But this would be true with proposals from a constituent assembly as well. It is also subject to a plebiscite and can equally be turned down by the people. The answer to whether a constituent assembly will be used for term extension is subject to the plebiscite and therefore the vote of the people.

Charter change opponents especially the senators will never admit that personal ambition is behind their insistence on a constitutional convention after 2010.

Perhaps the closest admission and it was heard loud and clear by Filipinos was presidential wanna-be Senator Mar Roxas who could not help himself and just used a four letter word against Charter change. You may not like public officials who campaign with bad words but at least he was honest. Now we know Senator Roxas would not dream of ever agreeing to a constituent assembly that would prevent him from being the presidential candidate of the oligarchy come 2010.

Opponents of Charter change mislead Filipinos to think that electing new officials without changing the bicameral presidential system is the change the country needs. It is exactly the opposite that will happen. Presidential elections in 2010 without charter change is the formula of no change. The same faces, the same money, the same charges of graft and corruption, the same useless hoopla. On the other hand, Charter change before 2010 can jumpstart the mood for political innovation. The political contest will be an entirely different ball game with more players and less money to boot.

I will say here and now that any postponement of Charter change after 2010 means it will not happen. And I will put my bets on the table. That is a given when the presidential candidates will have spent billions for their campaign. There will be only one agenda — the return on investment.

So why is a constitutional convention getting the upper hand, deceiving people into believing that it is better because it does not have the self-interest of incumbents? I agree. In their stead will be the wives, brothers or sisters, any relatives representing their interests.

Its proponents would have us believe that a concon would be more representative of the people. But that is only in theory. But will it really? A convention organized under the present system will be the same creature as the Congress they allegedly deride — politicians and their relatives and families coming from the same pool with guaranteed funds and a political network not within the reach of ordinary people wanting to be delegates.

Those who might take time to dig deeper into the alleged virtues of a constitutional convention after 2010 (if it happens at all), will soon realize it is nothing more than a big con (con) job. The trouble is if we wait until this happens that will really be too late. The sooner we get our Constitution reformed the better for the country. That is the real change we are aching for. But it requires leadership and more importantly nerves of steel with the baying wolves of our oligarchic status quo poised to pounce if it is attempted at all.

* * *

The Commission for Charter Change appointed by President GMA worked on, debated and voted on three proposals which was submitted to Congress: shift to parliamentary government, evolution into a federalist structure and a more liberal economic framework that would attract investments. Some skeptics did not believe such changes were necessary and can be equally done under the present presidential system.

I would recommend to them Dennis C. Mueller’s Constitutional Democracy. It is a comprehensive study that ‘examines how the basic constitutional structure of governments affects what they can accomplish.’ I believe that should be the perspective in analyzing why the Philippines needs a parliamentary federal system.

It is a response to problems specific to the country. But this is true not only in the Philippines. Mueller’s book addresses the concerns of many countries including the United States and those of the former Soviet Bloc that are said to be “increasingly disillusioned about government’s fundamental ability to reach solutions for domestic problems”. This relationship between structure and effective governance has led some of these countries to rewrite their constitutions.