This new charter change hullabaloo is proving to be a fiercer attempt at amending our constitution and at creating such a political firestorm that now it’s even seriously threatening the economy as local stocks tumbled down on jitters created by all these happenstances.
I was watching Cable TV several days ago when I chanced upon a live coverage of the Congress in session, and it was this very issue that they were so absorbed in, particularly about House Resolution No. 1109, a bill intending to amend or revised the 1987 Philippine Constitution through the formation of a constituent assembly, composed of the present members of the House of Congress.
What is being contemplated is the composition of a constituent assembly—- consisting of the very members of the Congress itself—- which should be approved by at least 2/3 of the members of the Congress, voting as a whole, where even when every senator would not concur to this particular proposal, enough number of votes may still allow such plan to amend the constitution coming from among the members of the Lower House.
Currently, there are 242 members of the Lower House and 23 members of the Senate, for a total of 265 individuals all in all. Under the proposed bill, all members of Congress——that is, all congressmen and senators—- would sit in session together one day (which is being planned just before the President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would give her SONA on July 27) and vote on whether or not to proceed with the plan to form a constituent assembly for the purpose of amending or revising the constitution.
The magic number is 177, which is two-thirds of 265. It doesn’t matter if all senators would vote in the negative—-as it is presumed that most of them would have their own presidential ambitions thus making them most inclined to thwart the bill as much as possible.
If enough votes are gathered, a constitutional assembly would be convened, and such body would compose the enumeration of proposed changes. After such procedure, it would be submitted for approval in a plebiscite. (Section 1 (2), Article XVII or the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Or, there is a more direct manner by which Congress could amend or revise our charter, by directly enacting in a bill, for changes in the provision of the constitution, and the Congress as a whole would vote for its approval, with a minimum of 2/3 votes. Still, the proposals would still have to go through the litmus of a plebiscite. (Section 1 (2), Article XVII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
See the full constitutional portion on amendments and revisions:
ARTICLE XVII, AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
Imagine the circuitous process and imagine the whole economic cost. Its enormous and besides we are not even speaking about the social and political cost that it might entail, at this point, when the presidential elections is just around the corner, its unimaginable.
If these congressmen only realize what kind of toy they are toying with right now, with this so vicious game, they would even be thinking about it in the first place, the amount of time and its political and economic consequences may just tear this nation into ruins once again. They should stop their being fancy about the constitution. They should seek another more convenient time, like perhaps after the 2010 presidential elections.
And besides, the constitutional provisions intended for making changes in our constitution is so general and highly-unrefined, where implementing laws or even mere guidelines have not yet been instituted.
A 2006 attempt at people’s initiative was struck down by the Supreme Court due to the lack of implementing laws that the Congress should have been dutiful enough to enact so many years ago—-but it didn’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment