No Hell, to a constituent assembly
The House of Representatives has passed the bill to implement the Constituent Assembly as the mode of amending the Constitution of 1987. It is still pending in the Senate. Given the way Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez is running things in the House, notably his brute force promotion of the Death Penalty Bill, now also pending in the Senate, we must not allow this Constituent Assembly mode of revising the fundamental law of the land.
The Constituent Assembly mode means that Congress, composed of the House and the Senate, will constitute itself into a Constitutional Assembly for the purpose of revising or formulating a new constitution. Malacañang has endorsed the idea, after President Duterte changed his mind about his earlier stated preference for a Constitutional Convention, one of three options for amendments or revisions provided under the current Constitution, which calls for election of delegates, the third one being a People’s Initiative. The third option is more cumbersome and less likely to be done effectively and expeditiously.
The House has demonstrated its inability to resist brute force from the current Speaker, who has just made good his threat to remove Committee Chairmanships from those who voted against the Death Penalty bill. Majority of elected representatives to Congress voted in favor of the Death Penalty Bill, and we wonder what incentives or threats were offered in return for their votes. This is the kind of Congress we have today.
Can we entrust the future of our country, of our children and their children and their children’s children to this Congress, which has proven itself willing to surrender their legislative powers in exchange for we wonder what?
The 1987 Constitution is not perfect, and could certainly be updated and improved. But it is an enlightened one that protects human rights, equal protection under the law, and equitable access to opportunities. Shortcomings in governance which has not reduced the gap between the few very rich and the very many poor through the decades since 1987 cannot be blamed on the Constitution. There are social and economic structural problems dating back to centuries of colonialism that still need to be overcome.
The concept of a shift to a federal government is therefore appealing and makes sense. It has the potential of leveling the playing field among the many regions in the country, given clear evidence that under the Metro Manila- centered unitary government, the National Capital Region and its neighboring Luzon provinces are economically way ahead of the rest of the country, notably the Visayas and Mindanao.
Managing a shift to a federal form of government is risky and complex; and this consideration must not be underestimated. If mishandled, we could end up in utter chaos. The civil service and local governments as well as national governments need to be reoriented and capacitated for the new mode of governance.
Nevertheless, opening up the economy to foreign investments will also likely generate more jobs and spread current technologies and opportunities more broadly throughout the country. A few super-wealthy Filipino families are getting even more obscenely wealthy. A more competitive economy is usually good for the consumers because product and service quality is likely to improve, and prices are more likely to be less exploitative of buyers.
Take for example the opening up of telecommunications during the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos. Decades of the PLDT monopoly, where the closed, family- controlled telecommunications giant which could not adequately fund a more rapid expansion of service facilities caused our economy to stagnate. With the entry of foreign investment, and a competitive market, today, practically everyone, even children, rich or poor own personal phones, and are connected at all times to friends, family and business contacts. Farmers are also gradually discovering that they can link directly to buyers and are becoming less dependent on middle-men. Workers away from home, including OFWs are in touch with their families and friends at any time through their mobile phones and computers, either owned or on access at Internet cafes.
Amending and updating the Constitution could improve the lives of our people throughout the country. But it depends on what will replace it.
If we entrust this tremendous responsibility to professional politicians who were elected to undertake legislative work, and tend to look after their personal or parochial interests, we could end up again as a basket case among developing countries.
Proposals to outlaw political dynasties would never be incorporated into a new constitution if current politicians were authorized to formulate this. There would probably be more leniency for graft and corruption, since for too many, their business interests and those of their friends are likely to be thwarted otherwise.
If the Senate were truly independent from our autocratic president under whose regime the constitutional amendments or revision will be implemented, we could rest easier. If the Senators were allowed to review the provisions drafted by the House members of the Constituent Assembly, we could have a more responsible and responsive new Constitution.
But the current Senate has demonstrated its lack of independence from the Executive branch.
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III’s call for Vice- President Leni Robredo to recall and correct her video message to the gathering of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs reeks of subservience to the President. This is an indication that even under the current Constitution, which guarantees independence of the Legislature from the Executive branch, the spirit of the Constitution of 1987 is being violated.
An election for delegates to a Constitutional Convention can attract non-politicians to run for participation in the crucial task of amending or formulating a new Constitution. Since they will not be allowed to run for political office following their participation in the Constitutional Convention, politicians and their families are less likely to take an interest. Therefore, chances are a critical mass of non-politicians, such as civil society leaders, sectoral leaders such as women and youth, farmers and fisher folk, tribal leaders, academics, business leaders, professionals and even retired politicians and retired members of the judiciary will have the opportunity to be part of the Constitutional Convention.
Most frightening is the prospect of weakening the human rights provisions under the current Constitution. President Duterte has made antihuman rights statements, and encouraged violation of human rights in the war against illegal drugs. How far will the subservient Constituent Assembly go in order to please him? How far will the powerful Speaker and the Senate President go to enable this country to move further into authoritarianism, a tendency which is happening now, and can even be legalized if provided for under a New Constitution?
We all know that authoritarianism has not been good for our country. We had to march in the streets for years until the EDSA Revolution in order to put an end to it, and we ended up a basket case among developing countries after 20 years of the authoritarian Marcos. We are just on our way to catching up with the rest of the world.
There is, too, the risk that under a new Constitution, the territorial boundaries, especially in the West Philippine Sea, and the Benham Rise could be narrowed down to accommodate the China claims, given the President’s public toadying to the Chinese, whatever may be his reasons, such as “we cannot stop them.”
Hell, no way we should allow a Constituent Assembly. Saving money is no excuse. A budget of P7B to P10B is more than worthwhile, to ensure that any revision of our Constitution is a way forward, and not backward into chaos.