Cha-cha by con-ass or con-con

The inclusion of a special article on amendments in the 1987 Constitution signifies that our Charter can really be subject to changes. Even if it is the most basic and fundamental law of the land to which all the other laws must adhere and conform, it is as imperfect as any other document crafted by man. Hence, changing our Charter is not prohibited no matter how rigid it is.

The primary and more important question in this connection is whether it is really necessary to change the Charter and whether such change is as urgent as it now appears to be manifested by our Lower House which seems to be railroading the process.

It cannot really be denied that through the years since it was adopted by a Constitutional Commission composed of members handpicked by late President Cory Aquino under her emergency powers in the provisional revolutionary government set up after the people power revolution, there are indeed some flaws in the document that need to be reviewed and revised.

But changing the Charter is actually not that urgent. To be sure, our country and the democratic government established by the present Charter are faring relatively well. We had about a dozen elections for the last 20 years and all of them had been generally successful and reflect the people’s will. On the political aspect therefore, Charter change is not urgently needed.

Admittedly however our past and present governments have not been quite successful in solving the problem of poverty in our land. The gap between the rich and the poor becomes bigger and bigger as the rich become richer and the poor, poorer. As shown by our past experiences, one of the main causes of poverty is corruption in government and the kind of politics we have that thrives on guns, goons and gold. In fact because of this kind of politics, political dynasties keep on increasing and new oligarchs are emerging and growing.

Thus it may be conceded that the more pressing need for Charter change involves the economic provisions particularly in the limitations of foreign investments. Our constitutional provisions on the national economy and patrimony must be reviewed and amended to allow bigger foreign capital that will promote industrialization and more employment. A study must be conducted on how bigger foreign investments in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources particularly agricultural lands, may be allowed. Apparently our law on Agricultural Reform has not been as effective as that of Taiwan that is now more industrialized and progressive.

In the current move to change the Charter however, the main change being proposed is on the form of government from the present presidential system to a federal system. This proposal is indeed quite controversial. The universally accepted truth is that a country succeeds and becomes progressive not because of the system of government but because of the people running the system. Any system will suffice as long as the officials running it do their job efficiently and with “utmost responsibility, integrity and loyalty.” So if change must be done, the change must be in the officials and political leaders running the government. They must undergo reformation and truly observe the basic   principle that “public office is a public trust.”

But during these times of uncertainty, it may also be worth trying another system of government like federalism now being pushed by this administration. Basically, under this system, the entire country which is the sole democratic and republican state will be divided into several federal states with specific territorial boundaries and a more responsive, accountable and autonomous government having powers, authority, responsibilities and resources of their own. They will be considered a “state” or “country” with their own executive, legislative and judicial departments, united with the other federal states into which the Philippines has been divided. And this union will itself be a federal state under a pre-eminent authority called the federal government also with its own executive, legislative, and judicial department that will represent the union of several federal states in the international community.

The most perceivable and feasible advantage under federalism is the improvement of peace and order within the respective communities of each federal state because of smaller areas to govern. This will in turn result in progress, prosperity and countryside development resulting in decongestion of the population in some areas like the current over concentration of population in the National Capital Region. It may likewise solve the problem of poverty as the informal settlers clogging the metropolis now will be encouraged to go back to their place of birth where there will be more opportunities for them to improve their lives. The perennial traffic problem now being experienced especially in the NCR may likewise be solved.

On the other hand, federalism may also strengthen the political dynasties by enlarging their areas of power, broadening their control of the populace and increasing their sources of ill-gotten wealth which they need to remain in power. With strengthening of political dynasties, graft and corruption in the government will also increase. Then there may also be conflicts between the state and federal officials as most of those occupying position in the states will not allow interference by the federal government. 

So Charter change may really be necessary particularly in providing safeguards to the above problems of federalism. Under our Constitution amendment or revision may be made by: (1) Congress as a constituent assembly (con ass) upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members; (2) a constitutional convention (con-con) called by 2/3 of all its members. The calling of a con-con may also be submitted to the electorate upon a majority vote by all the members of Congress; or (3) directly by the people through initiative or referendum upon a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters therein.

If the change is done by a con-ass, Congress may either meet in a joint session or separately. If they meet in a joint session, voting must be done separately. Considering the present political situation where the administration has a super majority in both houses, Cha-cha should be done by a con-con to ensure that it reflects the voice of the people.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected].