“No Cons for Con-Con” - revisited

Guys, let me tell this: the following entry will be a little serious since I’ll be tackling the dirty and chaotic Philippine Politics. Yes, I’ll be verging away from my personal experiences for this blog entry, at least for this one. It’s just that I can’t help share my thoughts on what is happening recently in our country and I think throwing my two cents on this topic is my small way of giving back to the country what it had given me, the opportunity to study in our National University, the Univ. of the Philippines, which honed me well and made me a thinking citizen, open to all ideas and continously aspiring for excellence.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I’m for Constitutional change but I’m definitely and solidly against Con-Ass. To give you an idea why, below is the Final Argumentative Paper I wrote and submitted for my English 104 (Arguments) class. It was undated, I dunno why, but I wrote it during my final semester in the University, the year was 2007…

——————————000—————————–

Resolve that the Constitutional Convention process of changing the Constitution is more cost-effective than the Constituent Assembly -

Title: No Cons for Con-Con

The last quarter of 2006 had been a difficult period for Charter Change and its advocates. Despite the fact that the President of the Republic had already thrown in her full support for the move, even declaring that “the train of Charter Change had already moved forward and left the station,” it eventually did not arrive to its supposed destination because of a sudden “derailment.” We could say that the “derailment” was caused by the opposition from the different sectors of society like the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, the political opposition, the militant groups and other concerned citizens. But we could also assume that the major factor for this derailment was the divided opinion on what is the best and most effective way of changing or revising our Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Issues on Charter Change

There were many issues debated in relation to Charter Change. Should we or should we not change the 1987 Constitution? Should we adapt the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government or retain the status quo which is the Presidential-Bicameral type? What is the most appropriate process that we could use in changing the Constitution? Which is the most beneficial process for Charter Change when it comes to cost-effectiveness?

Cost-Effectiveness re-orientation

In any changes, whether it is personal or global in scale has a cost or value and definitely has an effect to you and the society. It is just a matter of determination if the cost complements the effectiveness of that change. Just like in government policies, some may opt for low cost of change yet the outcome is very minimal while others may go for an overwhelming change yet the cost is too high that the people’s basic needs are being sacrificed. In Charter Change, cost-effectiveness is a very important factor since the move will become another landmark in the history of our country and our democracy. The cost of the process that would be chosen should match the quality of its outcome.

What 1987 Constitution states

The 1987 Constitution gave three choices on what mode should be used in revising or amending the Charter. Article XVII, sections 1 and 2 of our Charter state that:

“Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

1. The Congress, upon vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or

2. A Constitutional Convention

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters…”

The first option given, wherein Congress could change the charter through three-fourths vote, is more commonly known as the Contituent Assembly. Constitutional Convention consists of members duly elected by the Filipino people for the sole purpose of reviewing and revising the existing Constitution. The third option is the People’s Initiative, wherein the people themselves could directly propose amendments to the charter through the petition of the 12 percent of the registered voters, with 3 percent of each districts voting in favour of the proposed amendments. As we all remember, a group named Sigaw ng Bayan had advocated Charter Change and petitioned to the Supreme Court the legality of revising the Constitution through People’s Initiative. But the Supreme Court junked their petition saying that the 1987 Constitution has been very clear that People’s Initiative is for amendments of some parts of the Charter and not for changing the whole system of government. With this ruling, the choice has been made into a showdown between the Constituent Assembly and the Constitutional Convention.

———

Part 2 to follow…