THE CON ASS(ESS)

The ongoing debate on the legality of the recently passed House Resolution 1109 has made most of us scramble for copies of the 1987 Constitution, me included. Upon doing so, I am instantly reminded of the very important provisions that are pertinent to the ongoing debates.

Proposals for amendments or revision of the Constitution may be made by:

a. the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; OR

b. a Constitutional Convention

c. people’s initiative

The one contemplated in (a) is what has been the bone of contention for the past weeks- a Constituent Assembly. Let us discuss the same.

But before that, since we have already mentioned two important terms above, “amendment” and “revision”, let us first proceed with defining and distinguishing one from the other.

An amendment is the isolated or piecemeal change in selected provisions of the Constitution whereas a revision is the rewriting, overhaul or revamp of the entire charter. For example, if the objective is to merely extend the terms of office of the President and the members of Senate, the same is obviously a mere amendment, whereas if the change needed is that in the form of government which would entail a change in the entire structure of societies’ instrumentalities, the same partake to that of a revision.

Amendments being selective or piecemeal, require for practicality, that which would entail little costs and shortened time. Being so, amendments may be performed by direct legislative action without the need for an approval by the populace. This is premised on the principle that since legislators are directly elected by the populace, whatever amendments they (legislators) propose are deemed indirectly coming from the people who elect them. As soon as the Constituent Assembly has come up with its proposed amendments, a vote of ¾ of all its members automatically effect the changes that are needed.

This does not hold true with a convention. When what is envisioned is a collective or total overhaul of a charter, the task of coming up with a revised Constitution is given to a Constitutional Convention. Under this system, Congress may through a 2/3 vote of all its members call a Constitutional Convention or by a majority vote by its members, submit to the electorate the question of whether to call a Convention or not. After a call for such is approved, members of the Convention would be selected from different sectors of society which will have the expertise and sufficient time to deliberate on all the needed changes. As soon as the Convention has come up with the revised Charter, the same becomes valid through a majority of all the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.

But this is not to say that only revisions are appropriately acted upon in Constitutional Conventions. Constitutional Conventions may also be called for simple amendments, but then again the question of practicality and necessity should be considered. In the first place, would you call an entire construction company to make minor repairs to your kitchen sink?

What then is bone of contention under HR 1109? Several sectors have said that under the approved HR, Congress may now proceed to convene itself into a Constituent Assembly in which members of the House and the Senate would vote jointly- not separately to amend the Constitution. Those who come under this school of thought say that this would render the upper chamber inutile for the obvious reason that the bigger House membership by the force of its number could override any Senate objections to proposed amendments. Others say that with the way the honorables voted, the assembly would nothing be but an assembly of ASSES.

Meanwhile, those who are really unaware of what is going on mistakenly thought that HR 1109 in itself was the convention.

Those pushing for HR 1109 said that they merely wanted to force the Supreme Court to rule on whether Charter change, under a Constituent Assembly, required the vote of three-fourths of all members of Congress, or three-fourths of the House and three-fourths of the Senate. They further claimed that it simply authorizes Congress to convene as a constituent assembly and that the same was precisely what the 1987 Constitution provides.

I for one think that if only to do away with a lot of interpretations for the same Charter, then an amendment or revision is something which all of us should push for, that which is clear and bereft of several interpretations.

What then are a lot of people harking about HR 1109.

There is really nothing wrong with having a Constituent Assembly, it being a legitimate process to propose amendments or revision. What a lot of people find disturbing is the time it was proposed, almost a year from the time the elections will be held. With the growing suspicion of a conspiracy to prevent elections from happening, it is certainly a valid point to think that HR 1109 was preparatory to an amendment to perpetuate the stay in power of the President and other officials in government. This is what some people are afraid of since a majority of us, if not all are already in an election mode.

To reiterate there is nothing wrong with having a Constituent Assembly especially in a society where legislators really work for the betterment of the people who voted for them. When they stay and remain late in the day in Congress to ensure that their “ayes” will be counted as manifest desire to convene as an assembly geared towards passing changes that will translate to the benefit of the constituents that they represent. There is certainly nothing wrong with a Con-Ass when for practical reasons, they would want to take all the burden of work in scrutinizing every detail of the charter that needs to be improved just so that government would be able to save money and time that isn’t possible with a convention. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with that.

But when legislators present themselves in a hearing when normally they don’t just because their minutes are monetized by the hundreds of thousands of pesos, or when they are made to stay very late in the day in exchange for a guarantee of release of their “porks”, or when they vote upon the thought that their collectiveness may bring about an unwarranted extension of their terms, that is when the worries come in. If these were the reasons why our honorables cast their precious “ayes”, then HR 1109 is indeed something people should be harking about.

Stay tuned for more developments on the Con-Ass. Let us altogether keep ourselves posted.