Rody promises pro-Pinoy Charter
A “pro- Filipino” Constitution will take the place of the current one, President Duterte assured the nation on Friday as he warned lawmakers against using the constituent assembly ( con- ass) approach to Charter change to protect their vested interests and keep themselves in power.
“I am not stupid to allow the new Constitution to be anti-Filipino. Expect that. That is the job of the President. If worse comes to worst, they won’t know what will come to them if they disrespect the Filipinos,” Duterte said in his address to troops in Davao del Norte.
Rather than stir distrust for lawmakers,
Duterte advised the people to put their trust and confidence in them.
Duterte added he would closely monitor the crafting of a new Constitution to make sure it would be pro-Filipino. A new Charter is intended to pave the way for a federal form of government, which Dutere strongly advocates.
He admitted changing his mind and dropping his earlier preference for a constitutional convention, citing the staggering cost of taking the con-con path – estimated at P200 billion to P300 billion.
“I’d like to address myself to it. I don’t want Con-con. Why? It’s expensive. It will run into billions,” he said.
“The Philippines will be spending like about P200-P300 billion. It’s a waste of money,” he added.
“So I said, let Congress do it. You, as Filipinos, can you easily turn your back on your country that easily? If so then let’s just sell the Philippines,” he said in Filipino, addressing the lawmakers.
He stressed lawmakers deserve the trust of the people as they are democratically elected. “That is the essence of democracy. We elect leaders,” he maintained.
“It means to say there should always be trust; because if you look at the con-ass with distrust, it’s like you’re saying they’re thieves. You do not have monopoly of anything in this planet,” he pointed out.
As Congress prepares to take up proposals to amend the Constitution, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III said lawmakers would have to decide first whether the Senate and the House of Representatives would vote as one or separately under con-ass.
“Since the Constitution is silent as to the voting, whether jointly or separately, then both interpretations are possible,” Pimentel said.
“I respect the views of every senator on the issue of Charter change and federalism. I have my own views on this, but the last thing I want to do is impose my own views on others,” he maintained.
“My job as Senate president is to allow every view to be heard, so that we and the people themselves can weigh all the arguments and make an informed choice when the time comes for them to vote for the ratification of a new Constitution,” he added.
Pimentel pointed out that the PDP-Laban, of which he is president, has long advocated federalism.
He said there is a need to address the imbalance in the distribution of resources and the uneven development of various regions under the present system.
“We shall be open to all proposals and recommendations. This is the essence of democracy,” Pimentel said.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said that while the Constitution is indeed silent on the issue, he does not see any senator agreeing to a joint voting by the two chambers.
“I don’t think any one member of the Senate will agree to render his vote irrelevant. We may have to review Section 1, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, including the deliberations of the Con-con delegates, to clarify the intent of that provision,” Lacson said.
“Further, if a simple enactment of laws requires separate voting of both houses of Congress, a more important duty of proposing amendments to the Charter should logically involve the two chambers deliberating and voting separately,” he added.
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the issue of voting alone is likely to spark heated debates among the legislators. “I’m sure we will vote separately,” he stressed.
Senate Minority Leader Ralph Recto said voting should be done separately, as doing otherwise would surely drown out the voice of the 24man Senate. The House has close to 300 members.
Think again
With the push for Charter change and federalism gaining ground in Congress, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said there is need for further study the matter as such “radical” change would have far-reaching impact on the country.
For one, he said most federal countries have huge territories and may indeed be best governed under a federal system of government.
“The country must not venture on a radical constitutional change without a solid prior study delving on the pros and cons of federalism,” he said in his counter SONA last week.
“Territorially huge countries are constrained to federalize because of their sheer size. The small size of the Philippines may not justify federalism,” he pointed out, noting that seven of 10 large federated nations had only been forced to decentralize power.
Big federal states are the US, Australia, Canada, Russia, India, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Venezuela.
“We must not be galvanized into frenzied approbation of the proposed federal system – which is principally based on motherhood statements of superior efficacy and unvalidated benefits,” he asserted.
He described arguments for federalism as “nebulous” and the projected benefits from such system “grossly tentative.”
A shift to federalism, he added, could “heighten ethnic and regional rivalries destructive of national unity.”
“Change to federalism is costly. It would entail billions of pesos to set up state governments and ensure the delivery of state services. Moreover, the states would have to fund regulatory expenditures like salaries of personnel, development of infrastructure and even the holding of regular elections,” he warned,
Ifugao lawmaker Teodoro Baguilat Jr., for his part, said taking the con- ass path to Cha-cha “will mean that debate will be limited to the elected members of the 17th Congress.”
He said it is through constitutional convention that “consultations will be more inclusive and valid views from various sectors such as the academe, civil society and religion groups will be considered.”
A con- con approach, he said, would “make sure that any change to the Constitution, from which all laws emanate and should conform to, will be deliberate, well thought out and passed with the intention of helping the majority, and not just serve the interests of a powerful few.”
Leaving the task of amending the Constitution to Congress alone, he said, would mean letting lawmakers promote or preserve their vested interests.
“If we want to avoid shenanigans arising from the formation of the ruling party and the selection of the minority, we will need true political reform and genuine political reform cannot be achieved by a constitutional assembly,” he said.
“Putting in place a clear anti-political dynasty provision and reforming the partylist system, among others, are not viable in the hands of Congress alone,” he added.
He also expressed fear the debate on the shift to federalism would take valuable time otherwise spent on discussing priority bills of President Duterte, such as the re-imposition of the death penalty, the lowering of the age of criminality, tax reform and the passage of Freedom of Information Act.
“Congress would be overburdened by the discussion on constitutional change. Death penalty, FOI, the mining law, among others, will all require long debates. Having a constituent assembly will sideline these discussions,” he said.
He said even discussions on the Bangsamoro Basic Law alone had taken much time and effort.
“BBL covering one region, took forever to discuss, what more Cha-cha and the shift to federalism that will cover the entire country?” he said.
“If P7 billion will indeed be required to have a constitutional convention, then it is a price I think we should pay. It is not too heavy a price for something as important as constitutional amendment,” the lawmaker said.
“Unless the plan all along is to railroad the bills with a supermajority and a coopted minority. But that would be unfair to the Filipinos.”