There is need to do a careful study of the Comparative Matrix of Constitutional Convention Measures prepared by the Committee on Constitutional Amendments of the House of Representatives. It must have been faithfully as it is dutifully done by the concerned Technical Working Group so created and tasked to do this job.
This mutely historical document comes all in 33 pages that take into account the following legislative measures on the subject filed by the following House Members:
1. House Concurrent Resolution No. 03 by Rep. Felix R. Alfelor, Jr.
2. House Bill No. 1752 by Rep. Raul T. Gonzales, Jr.
3. House Bill No. 3149 by Rep. Abraham Kahlil B. Mitra
4. House Bill No. 3473 by Rep. Carmelo F. Lazatin
5. House Concurrent Resolution No. 17 & House Bill No. 4075 by Rep. Victor F. Ortega (Committee Chair)
6. House Resolution No. 858 by Rep. Rene M. Velarde
7. House Bill No. 5564 by Rep. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya
8. House Joint Resolution No. 28 by Rep. Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon
9. House Bill No. 5700 by Rep. Antonio V. Cuenco
10. TWG Recommendation
Since the TWG has met and discussed all these measures among themselves, it may be presumed that the recommendations made by the group are a product of democratic consensus. Let us put this forth as a tentative hypothesis.
All a reader needs to do, without having to read the individual measure in its own ontology, is to go over every recommendation made by the TWG which is found at the bottom right corner of the comparative matrix or tabulation. And the highlights may be as follows:
a. Short Title – A Constitutional Convention is hereby constituted to propose amendments to, or revision of, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. This law shall be known as the “Constitutional Convention Act of 2010”. (Ortega)
b. Composition – The Constitutional Convention shall be composed of Delegates, one for every congressional district of the Republic of the Philppines, in the number of districts which will be voted upon on the May 10, 2010 elections. (Alfelor, Gonzales, Mitra, Ortega & TWG)
c. Qualifications – Delegates shall have the same qualifications as those required of Members of the House of Representatives. (Alfelor, Gonzales, Ortega, Abaya, Biazon & Cuenco)
d. Completion – The Convention shall endeavor to complete its work within one (1) year from the time of its organization. (Biazon & TWG)
e. Election of Delegates – The election of delegates to the Convention shall be held on the second Monday of May 2010 simultaneous with the national and local elections in the year 2010. The certificate of candidacy of a candidate for Delegate shall be filled in the same manner as that provided by the Omnibus Election Code with respect to the candidates for the House of Representatives. The Commission on Elections shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the conduct of such election. (Alfelor, Mitra, Ortega, Abaya, Biazon & Cuenco)
f. Who May Convene – The Chairman of the Commission on Elections, assisted by the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, shall take charge of all arrangements for the convening of the Constitutional Convention. (Biazon)
g. Commencement of Session – The Convention shall meet in the Session Hall of the House of Representatives on the first Monday of July 2010 at ten o’clock in the morning. Xxx
h. Parliamentary Immunity – Laws relative to parliamentary immunity of Members of Congress shall be applicable to the delegates of the Convention. (Biazon)
i. Convention Report – The Convention shall submit its report to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, and the Commission on Elections within (30) days from the completion of the consolidated amendments, or revision. (Gonzales)
j. Ratification – The amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution proposed by the Convention shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than ninety (90) days after the approval of such amendments or revision. (Ortega)
k. COMELEC Authority – The Commission on Elections shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act. (Gonzales)
l. Separability Clause – If any provision of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional, any other provision not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect. (Abaya)
m. Repeal Clause – All other laws, rules, regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. (Cuenco)
n. Effectivity – This Act shall take effect fifteen days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. (Cuenco)
If we have to connect the dots, the final configuration that would be molded from the TWG’s deliberations might – to every serious mind – find it suffering from any given number of moral, legal, and constitutional flaws. But that must be a work in legal scholarship altogether. At bottom, here are but few naked facts readable from the TWG’s recommendations:
1. A period of one (1) year is prescribed for the Convention to complete its work.
2. Amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall be ratified by a majority votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than ninety (9) days after approval of such amendments or revision.
3. A period of thirty (30) days is prescribed for the Convention to submit its Convention Report to the President, Congress, and COMELEC.
An ordinary reading will tell us that the oppositionist’s misconception that time is running out or that there will be no material time to effect Charter Change and to erect the new Constitution but falls as a myth. In other words, as far as the present ruling bloc is concerned, the future of a forthcoming charter change is bright not bleak. Making sure all requirements are met, the House Concurrent Resolution (in its revised form) is already accompanied by an unnumbered House Bill which seeks to implement the former.
Under the convenient assumption that no sector of society militates against a Constitutional Convention, what would now stop the train of charter change to reach station, pray tell? Where signs indicate, the amendments or revision of the Constitution are about done and who knows the whole dish is ready for the serving. And our clueless voting public will be glad to approve of an amended or revised Constitution since they will benefit from the Pantawid Pamilya Program which comes in cash dole outs come that appointed time.
From where I stand, there are not enough activists in this country to stand in the way of the final launching of the New Constitution. They can pull the rag from under our feet, believe me.
At the end of the day, GMA knows very well her Skinner’s “Ideal Society” and let me call that not mother instinct but more as an indication of intellectual supremacy of one form or other.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Here comes the CON CON and the CON ASS again…watch for the next
move of these people. They had just feasted at Le Cirque. Maybe
they want to feast on the Constitution next.
Any Constitution would always be a convenient scapegoat for failures and misgovernance. Unfortunately, Primer’s right. The cha-cha train via a ConCon will reach station.
Paradoxically, it may have been far easier to change the Constitution than originally thought via Concon than Conass.
The name of the game is “patronage politics” and a system of rewards and punishments by GMA is really an inducement by itself.
Primer,
I’m not sure I understand the problem. The session starts in July 2010. Are we to worry that the form of government might change to allow Ms. Arroyo to slide into the Prime Minister’s slot? Are we concerned the plebiscite will go the wrong way, because the changes will be unpalatable to (whom)?
If the duly elected representatives of the government amend the constitution to throw all Catholics into the sea, and the people vote for it because voting is rigged by vote-buying or other shenanigans, I rather think it will not happen.
Tyrants always feel they are intellectually superior to the masses. Then they are overthrown and treated unkindly.
If I could vote, I would say, well, let’s see how it plays out, because government should be granted the benefit of the doubt. Stability and responsibility reflect well on the Philippines; chaos does not. If constitutional revisions indeed are a power play instead of a sincere effort to improve the constitution and the country’s well-being, it will be obvious.
It is important to vote into the presidency a man or woman of reason.
Joe
Prof. Randy David, I would think, is a trained mind, having been Director of UP’s Third World Studies Center. If he believes that GMA runs for a congressional seat to set the stage for her becoming a prime minister, then I see this as a possibility.
If the ConCon delegates will be elected simultaneously with the incoming members of the 15th Congress, then again, it is possible that a ready-made or customized Constitution will be approved, and then a plebiscite so held will ratify the same, and ergo, a New Constitution would have been erected.
It is highly predictable that one of the amendments or revision to the Constitution would be a shift to a parliamentary form of government and it is in this new constitutional order that GMA would preposition herself as the upcoming prime minister.
If this view be deemed possible, then GMA perpetuates herself in power. This assumes that the next president will not be the first stumbling block for this scenario to take shape.
It is no longer of any moment if the new set of provisions are palatable or not provided they satisfy so-called “vested interests”.
Pray tell me. Don’t you know what it would take for ConCon delegates to be elected simultaneously with the incoming members of the 15th Congress? What made you think the incoming members of the 15th Congress would approve en toto a ready-made or customized Constitution? Possibilities? Please think again.
I don’t like the 1987 Freedom Constitution. Too many socialist principles. But I will defend it because for all its flaws, it provides a check on government predations on the people no matter how how little.
If we want a new Constitution so darn bad, why don’t we simly reestablish the 1899 Malolos Constitution? If it was good for the Fathers of the Nation, it should be good for the nation today.
I don’t trust anyone alive today not to write in to law, some advantage or payoff for himself. At least with Malolos, everybody who would have gotten some freebie somehow is already dead! :)
Francis:
I can see you are a practitioner of brinkmanship as well :)
Having said that, I am not in the habit of defending a flawed document. If it is flawed, remove the flaw.
If the Malolos Constitution kept its borders to Luzon, hell yeah.. why not :)
Not sure what brinkmanship you’re talking about. ;P
You know the saying “Better the devil you know?”
The sad fact is to ‘remove the flaw,’ you’d have to trust career politicians to do the removing. Your gamble is that what comes out will be better than what you got now. So better defend a flawed document. Can’t make it easy on the trapos, right?
That appears to be a validation that you can’t trust Filipino voters to elect politicians who can do the right thing.
I’d do the job myself, but would you trust me not to screw you over? Never give to friends powers than your enemies may inherit and be turned against you.
I don’t trust politicians no matter where they come from because I don’t believe in government magic.
The idea that any moron with enough friends somehow is automatically conferred wisdom upon oath of office is insane. Its like saying government uniforms are a proof of responsible firearm ownership.
So why are we expected to all shut up and obey and give up our sovereignity when these jokers pass by?
Remember the words of Joel S. Hirschhorn: “Nothing conceals tyranny better than elections.”
Francis,
There is a check and balance – accountability.
If you don’t the job, I’ll take you out. If I don’t the job, take me out.
The thing is, voters seem to think that once the candidate is “in”, they can’t no longer be taken out. The point is they can be taken out. The crux of the matter lies in political will – the will to hold officials accountable in order to balance the equation.
However, if it has come to the point, where we can’t trust our politicians, and our voters to elect the politicians who do the right thing – sure is a pretty sad affair that captures the Philippine body politique – can’t trust no one – and no one is accountable. Then we wonder why its a mess :)
I see your ‘accountability’ and I raise ‘incumbency.’
You are right that voters seem to think that once the candidate is “in”, they can’t no longer be taken out.
And its true everywhere, not just the Philippines. As long as you don’t get caught raping a nun or something, its pretty hard to lose your seat once you’re in. Politics is the art of doing just enough so as not to piss off too many people to lose their vote. That’s why they all seem incompetent or morally flexible.
Sure, it can be done, but there has to be more to individual sovereignity than election, re-election, impeachment. What about all points in between these?
People the world over, have this ‘remote control’ idea of democracy. When they vote, they are in charge, exercising their sovereignity.
Then they can sit back and let their politicians do anything. And the politicians excuse anything they do with “Well, I was elected! The people approve what I do. If you go against me, you go against the people.”
And sadly people buy that.
I don’t wonder why we are a mess. I know why.
The US and Philippine Wars of Independence had similar origins, but both learned different things.
Americans learned that government is a necessary evil and must be watched no matter who is in charge. (Not that they’re doing it now, with Barrack Delano Messiah Obama.)
Filipinos learned that government is neutral and it is the people in charge who make it good or bad. Hence, the revolving door and eternal quest to find the good man.
We are NOT supposed to trust our politicians. Whether it be Ninoy, Gandhi, or whomever. Power corrupts. That is a given. We are placing people in a position of power over people and without eternal vigilance, that power is soon turned against the citizenry.
Ask the American Indians about the weight of government promises.
Francis,
Trust me, the Republicans are watching the Messiah every step of the way.
And he is doing a mighty fine job, I might add, as did both FDR and Jesus.
Joe
The United States has a two-headed one party system designed to keep all other third parties out. I wouldn’t trust the Republican party any more than the Democrats.
Only American politician today I consider a statesman is Texas Rep. Ron Paul (14th D., Republican).
He warned people for years what was coming and they laughed at him. Now its all coming true and people are starting to listen.
I was part of the Pinoys for Ron Paul movement in the last election. We had people in Manila and Cebu. Sadly, Fil-Ams are Democrats because they love getting public-funded freebies.
If the 1987 Constitution destroyed that of the 1973 and the 1973 Constitution destroyed that of 1935 and the 1935 Constitution destroyed that of the 1899 Malolos Constitution, we might end up looking for an earlier Constitution before the first community of Filipinos did assemble.
Point is, amendment or revision to the Constitution is an effort toward modernity or modernization such that provisions in the Constitution that may have already outlived their usefulness due to antiquity must already be replaced if not discarded.
And the more we keep changing Constitutions, the more modern society we become, or so its thought.
This is a statement I can definitely agree with!
Wouldn’t that result in the Philippines having no permanent standards which to measure the law since the rules of the game will change according to the whims of the moment?
Modernism for the sake of modernism is not ‘rule of law,’ that’s dictatorship of relativism! :(
Francis:
It really depends on the specific provisions crafted.
For example, parity rights – why embed it if it can be covered under legislation? legislation on on which types of property can be owned in full by foreigners will change with the times – but the principle of using parity rights to advance the national interest remains constant.
Yeah, I think this parity rights thing is an infringement on the rights of Filipinos to do away with their property.
If the private property is truly theirs, who are you to say who they can sell it to? Most people don’t get that though. They think the evil foreigner will swoop in with his evil foreign money and buy the country and we’ll all be hookers and golf caddies.
I think that as a compromise. If foreigners from one country allow Filipinos to buy their private land, we should reciprocate and allow foreigners from that land only to buy Filipino private land.
Note, this doesn’t apply to public lands.
The chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives is supposed to have made a ‘grocery list’ of some 30 to 40 provisions in the Constitution that he seeks to amend or revise and despite promise, he still did not circulate a copy of the same.
Maybe, it behooves upon us to go over them as soon as such a document is made available.
Who could be the next ConCon delegates?
On the matter, what is being proposed from what I heard, is amending this 60-40 to 70-30% foreign ownership.
70-30% is no less BS than 60-40%.
People should be free to do what they want with their justly acquired property. And yes, that means selling ownership to foreigners, martians, and fish as long as the deal is equitable on both sides.
All third parties can just butt out.