Con-Ass if amending economic provisions only
If our lawmakers are truly convinced that amending the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution will be a big boost to our economy, then they should get their acts together and exercise their power as a Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass).
Their one and only job here is to agree on how to phrase the proposed amendment. The Commission on Elections will take care of the plebiscite. And the rest is up to us, voters.?
We learned from the numerous televised Charter Change or Cha-Cha debates that there are actually only two plausible modes of reforming our constitution, Con-Ass or Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). Unfortunately, lost in all of those congressional hearings is the fact that the choice between the two modes will ultimately depend on the type of reform contemplated.
Simply put, if the plan merely covers a specific provision or a small set of prescriptions, then a Con-Ass would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the intent is to overhaul the constitution, or even replace it altogether, then a Con-Con would be absolutely essential.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the 1987 Constitution has made a distinction between the kind of reform that can be pursued, namely, amendment or revision. (See Article XVII, Section 1)
According to the Supreme Court in the case of Lambino vs. Comelec, “Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.”
And so, the Con-Ass mode would be more appropriate when pursuing an amendment, for instance, inserting the words “as may be provided by law” in certain economic provisions of the charter. Whereas, it must be via the Con-Con route if revision is the intended reform, such as shifting to a federal system or a parliamentary form of government.
Senator Robin Padilla and Congressman Rufus Rodriguez should be thrilled that they can now proceed with their committee hearings totally focused on reform work. But they should also shed themselves of the hubris which killed past Cha-Cha attempts by adopting a more strategic mindset. Pursuing a well-defined reform objective is a viable roadmap for our first shot at reforming the 1987 Constitution.
领英推荐
Accordingly, both Sen. Padilla and Cong. Rodriguez should consider coordinating their committee efforts. This means of course, that they need to align their sights moving forward. The current disjointed approach will lead them both to the same end, which is a stalemate between the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The task at hand for both committees is to produce a common draft proposal. Ostensibly, this would entail agreeing on the phrasing of the proposed amendment. Working together as a cohesive unit will be challenging but it will save the reform initiative valuable time.
Once the committees have agreed on how the amendment is to be articulated, each can then bring the final product to their respective chambers for deliberations. If changes to the draft amendment is needed, then both committees can collaborate once again addressing the concerns raised by their respective colleagues. They simply repeat this process until each chamber gives their approval.
The 1987 Constitution requires that the Senate and the House of Representatives vote separately and the voting threshold for each chamber is three-fourths of all its members. (See Article XVII, Section 1) Once this is attained, then the next step for both chambers is to set the schedule for a plebiscite where the electorate can either reject or ratify the proposed amendment.
It is not unreasonable to think that this entire process can all be accomplished this year. Certainly feasible for both chambers of Congress to finalize this amendment proposal before the president’s second State of the Nation Address in July. The plebiscite can even be simultaneously done with the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections in October. ?
Notably, the electorate will have enough time to reflect on the proposed amendment. And more crucially, a sufficient period can be dedicated for public deliberations. By plebiscite day, we would have judiciously considered the pros and the cons of this reform proposal. Hence, we can be reasonably confident that our decision will be well-thought.
Of course, if both lawmakers have other reform ideas in mind and will not commit to focusing solely on the economic provisions, then the process outlined here will not be applicable. Sadly, constitutional reformist will just have to live with another deadlock between the two chambers of Congress.