Constitutional convulsions and the rationality of a constitutional convention

squabble between the Senate and the House of Representatives is a warning sign that while a Con-Ass is less costly in monetary terms, it can have steeper political costs that could have long-lasting damaging effects on our body politic.

The more rational route is through a constitutional convention or Con-Con with elected and appointed members. This will ensure that political partisanship will be minimized, and will open the process not only to those who can win in an election, but also to include academics and con- stitutional scholars. Additional conditions can be imposed on members which could include that they should not be partisan, have never been members of any political party or have not the past several election cycles, and would be barred from running for any elective posts or be appointed to any government position for the next several election cycles. It should even be included that members should not be related by consanguinity or Congress, or any other elected of

These conditions may appear to be tall orders, but are worth advocating if only to ensure that the process of revising the Constitution will indeed be insulated from self-serving and politically partisan interests.

Those who oppose a Con-Con argue against its cost, which is estimated to be at around P11 billion. While the amount may appear staggering, it is not at all steep considering that we are talking about the fundamental law of the land. If we can spend billions of pesos in building infrastructures to facilitate development, it is a cheap argument to even argue that P11 billion is not worth spending for building the basic infrastructure of our political system, from where all our laws would emanate.

The apparent deadlock between the House and the Senate on the issue of Con- Ass is therefore a blessing in disguise. It enabled us to see what it can turn into, where self- serving proposals, protection of turfs, undermine not only the process of revising, but also the content of, the Constitution.

It also now provides us more time to offer the merits of a ConCon, even as more time is also given for people to really understand the process of revising the Constitution. If there should be efforts where energies should be focused, it should be in educating the citizenry on the Constitution, its relevance, its parts, and the basic issues that surround the key decisions we have to make. These include whether we are going federal, or remain unitary; whether we should shift to a parliamentary system; and whether we should have a unicameral or bicameral legislature.

It is only through public discussions that citizens can become more informed so that we can better participate in the crafting of the Constitution. These include the selection of the delegates, voicing our opinions during the proceedings, and eventually casting our vote during the plebiscite that will put our stamp of approval on the fundamental law of the land.