“I do not know if we can convene immediately even if the resolution is approved today.” – Hon. Prospero Nograles, Speaker, House of Representatives

The approval of House Resolution No. 1109 (ConAss) has been met with everything but sobriety – even the very leadership of the House of Representative has failed to comprehend its approval in the light of the provisions of the very Constitution they seek to amend.

It is unfortunate that most of our Representatives never attempted to understand where ConAss lies in the Constitutional scheme of things. However, it is even more unfortunate if we resort to labels identifying ourselves as ‘Anti-ChaCha’ and placards articulating our ‘No to ConAss’ without an appreciation of the dynamics in our Constitution, however flawed it may seem to many.

Charter Change refers to either the revision or amendment of the Constitution. Amendment would refer to ‘isolated or piecemeal change only’ while revision would pertain to a ‘revamp or rewriting’ [Cruz, 1996]. Article XVII provides that both involve two (2) steps – proposal and ratification.

Constituent Assembly (ConAss) is among the modes of proposing either amendments or revisions to the Constitution. A reading of the Article would show that there are the three modes for proposing changes: (a) Constituent Assembly [Section 1 (1)]; (b) Constitutional Convention [Section 1(2)]; or (c) by a People’s Initiative [Section 2].

For the first mode, Congress – and by ‘Congress’ we mean not merely the House of Representatives but must necessarily include the Senate – may convene itself into a Constituent Assembly ‘upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members’ [Emphasis mine.] As ConAss, the Senate and House of Representatives become a constituent body exercising special power to formulate a new constitution or propose amendments to the constitution. A caveat though, our Constitution does not explicitly state whether the two houses of Congress will be voting jointly or separately.

Congress may call for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) ‘by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members’ or by a simple majority vote, Congress can submit the decision (on whether or not to call a ConCon) to the electorate. [Again, emphasis mine.] Under ConCon, it is imperative that the delegates to the ConCon is from a direct election by the people. The number of delegates is entirely the discretion of Congress.

Finally, proposals may also be made by our own initiative. We, the People, may directly propose amendments to the Constitution upon petition of at least 12% of all registered voters, and provided that every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. The last sentence in Section 2 of Article XVII makes it imperative for Congress to enact legislation to implement this provision.

Congress has the sole discretion to decide on which mode to employ in proposing changes to the Charter, save, perhaps, for the third mode on People’s Initiative. Be as it may, Article XVII makes it imperative that the product of either ConCon or ConAss must be submitted to the people for ratification through a referendum. [Section 4]

Finally, the Supreme Court, even after Congress has convened itself into a ConAss, can still strike down such measure if it appears that the conditions precedent to the convening of the ConAss was attended with ‘grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction’. [Section 1, Article VIII] Hence, even if it is the sole discretion of Congress to choose which mode of proposing changes to the Charter, the Supreme Court can still come in and strike down such as unconstitutional.

In other words, while we may rage against the railroading of the ConAss resolution by our Honorable Representatives (Aside: I cringe whenever I hear them refer to themselves as ‘representatives’ – they seldom genuinely represent our interests), we must do so in the light of what the Constitution actually provides. Although we are all glad that we, as a people, are edifying ourselves (about time that we do) with the provisions of our Constitution and are engaging in healthy debates, let us not fall prey to our emotions.

The House of Representatives may have passed the resolution but such would remain meaningless if the Senate refuses to pass an equivalent resolution. Again, Mr. Speaker, without a similar move by the Senate, the resolution doesn’t mean anything and you cannot ‘convene immediately’.

Again, this is a call for sobriety. If we do not want ConAss as a mode of proposing changes to our Constitution, then let us make sure the men and women who are supposed to represent our opposition would, in fact, represent our sentiments. If not, let us turn to our Senators – Senators Arroyo and Pimentel have categorically stated that the Senate will not pass a similar resolution. If the Senate fails us, the Supreme Court has proven time and again that it heeds reason and fairness.

Fatal error: Call to undefined function p75HasVideo() in /homepages/39/d169067170/htdocs/voices/wp-content/themes/NewFV/single-default.php on line 57