Who has the mandate for lawmaking Congress or the President?

In one of the roundtable conferences on constitutional reform at the UAP, I was surprised when a congressman stood up to ask why the promulgation of a bill, a legislative mandate, should depend on the President. This was a bright moment I had not expected and least of all from a congressman whom I thought was as mindless as most.

He asked a valid question that needs to be supported and not be allowed to merely fizzle after a discussion. The President can say he does not want constitutional reform and that’s that. Why should we accept such arrogance if it is wrong and I daresay... unconstitutional. We are a democratic republic with duties for the government’s respective branches.

In the group were constitutional reform advocates who have been meeting for some time now. They have invited both foreign and local businessmen, legislators and academics to keep the issue of constitutional reform alive. The main topic of discussion in these meetings has been the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution. In the face of widespread resistance from politicians who do not want constitutional reforms, what are public citizens to do? Foreign investors have said the Philippines is one of the most difficult places to invest in. The economic provisions of the Constitution discourage foreign investments no matter how much these are needed by the country to create jobs, build infrastructure and provide social services for its burgeoning population.

*      *      *

Happily, our leaders in Congress, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte have agreed that it was time to reform the economic provisions. We cannot keep whining why investors prefer to put their money in other countries in the region and do nothing about it. To avoid controversy, they have assured anti constitutional reformists it will be done like any bill  through ordinary legislation  with both houses voting separately. Before the Corona impeachment, Enrile was optimistic that it could be done within the year.

The time has come and gone but the proposal has not moved an inch. Worse, the President has come out categorically that he was against it and said it was not necessary citing “arguable economic gains.” Other legislators who could not care less what happens to the Philippines because of our Constitution’s onerous blocks against investments say simply “there is no more time.” In other words, after wasting time and money on the impeachment and conviction of the chief justice of the Supreme Court these legislators conveniently make the excuse that there is no more time. By the way this is not the first time we have heard that excuse so it is more sinister than it sounds.

*      *      *

We are in an impossible situation and politics is to blame. The country and the people’s welfare are being sacrificed for politics. It is a catch 22 situation for any president  damn if you do and damn if you don’t. Two presidents in the past pushed for it but they were accused of wanting only to extend their terms. The present president does not have the same problem. He just does not want it. But he will have to face the wrath of pro-constitutional reformists. We need leadership that is strong and wise enough to resist vested interests dedicated to stop the country’s progress.

*      *      *

The president has been quoted as saying that we do not need constitutional reform because even without it, we are doing well. That opinion skirts the problem. It is a mistake to think that it is constitutional reform on paper that is wanted. We do not want nor need constitutional reform on paper. Changes in the document are only symbolic.

It is the purpose of the Constitution that needs change. Our present one is not working. The relation between the government and the people has deteriorated so badly it needs to be revisited not for itself but for what it was created  as the social contract between leaders and citizens.

It has gone awry. Government is no longer seen as working for the people. In time this unhappy situation will have dire consequences. That is why it is wrong to say that we can do without constitutional change.

Take the economic provisions, we cannot want more foreign investments to the Philippines and ignore that our Constitution discourages it. This disparity works against our efforts to advance the country. (As a learned friend told me, investments are not just about money, but also the entire technology that accompanies the investment that we simply do not have.)

We are confused about the text and the reality it represents. If the Constitution needs to be changed it is not solely because of its text or about how we go about changing the text. No wonder we are stuck. Constitutional reform is about changing the reality that the text represents.

The saying that you either change the Constitution or face a revolution has never been a more apt description of the political situation in the Philippines than it is today.

The bold congressman who asked why we need the President’s consent to debate about the investment provisions in the Constitution is right. He hit the bull’s eye  the mandate to legislate and reform the Constitution belongs to Congress, not to the President.

The congressman’s epiphany should inspire Enrile and Belmonte. As leaders of Congress they should go ahead and start to take the steps necessary to pass the bill as a matter of duty under the Constitution. If there is “no time” then they must “make time” for it. Once they have done their job and the bill is ready for the signature of the President the onus will be on him to do his part, which I daresay, at this point merely procedural. The real crux of constitutional reform rests on the people in a referendum to accept or reject the reforms so badly needed.

Enrile and Belmonte should act out their positions as representatives of a co-equal branch of government and as mandated by the Constitution. They represent the lawmaking function of government when they meet with President Aquino tomorrow.