The members of DU30 CORE whoare known as true-blue advocates of federalism to transform the
country into a real democracyfelt like being doused with cold water. Why such strong reactions against
the mode loosely or derisively called ConAss?

The Philippine Constitution provides for three modes of constitutional reform. The first is by
Constituent Assembly where, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members, Congress
may propose revisions to the Constitution. Since the members of Congress are essentially
lawmakers while the act of revising the Constitution is a constituent act—that is, as
representatives of the sovereign people—they shall in effect, don a different hat. Then, after
Congress crafts proposed revisions to the Constitution, it will then be presented to the Filipino
people for their ratification in a plebiscite.

People who oppose ConAss as a mode of Charter Change have at least three major objections
against it. First, there is an ambiguity in the wording of the Constitution which says that “any
amendment or revision may be proposed by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members.” Congress, as we know, consists of two chambers, the upper (the Senate) and the
lower house (the House of Representatives.) How will three fourths of all its members be
ascertained? Will it be by adding up the members of the Senate who are only 24 and the
members of the House numbering 238 and then getting three fourths of such total? Or, will three
fourths be computed separately, that is, three fourths of the Senate and three fourths of the
House? Although experts say that the reckoning of three fourths should be separate, this may still
create a problem which could effectively delay the process of amending the Constitution.
Another issue raised by those who object to ConAss is that the members of Congress may not
have the needed competence or expertise in crafting a new Constitution. This, again, could result
in a failed exercise to reform the Constitution as the electorate may simply vote down the
proposals out of uncertainty as to whether or not to trust the members of Congress. The third
reason is that it is a common apprehension that the politicians comprising Congress may be
guided, not by the people’s common good. Rather, they are influenced by pressure groups or
their own vested interests. People generally fear that traditional politicians will most likely not
address issues like political dynasties, “turncoatism,” electoral reforms, and the party-list system.

Now compare ConAss with the second mode of revising the Constitution—by Constitutional
Convention. Under this mode, Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, may call a
Constitutional Convention. If this number is not mustered, Congress may, by a vote of a majority
of all its members, present to the people in a plebiscite the question of whether to call for
Constitutional Convention or not. The members of the Constitutional Convention, generally, will
be elected by the people although—as some experts opine—the chief executive may appoint
some of them provided the law creating the Con-Con shall state so. Under this mode,
constitutional experts, academicians and professionals who are not traditional politicians stand a
good of becoming members of Con-Con. Once convened, the Con-Con can look into the entire
Constitution, even overhaul it, and then propose a revised Constitution.

In either ConAss or Con-Con, the proposed revisions must be ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after
approval of the proposed revisions either by the Con-Ass or Con-Con. The period between 60
days up to the plebiscite shall be used for information dissemination.

The third mode of amending the Constitution is by people’s initiative. This, however, cannot
serve the purpose of reforming the system of government from the unitary to the federal system
as the change entails large-scale revisions. People’s initiative has been declared by the Supreme
Court as valid only for the amendment of one or two provisions in the Constitution.

The question that comes to mind now is—since so much is at stake in changing our 29 year-old-
Constitution as it involves the future of the country and its citizens—is whether the cost of a
Con-Con would be worth it. After all, the expected results can bring about inclusive growth,
genuine devolution of powers to the regions and economic progress. Yet, if Con-Con is now out
of the radar for reasons of cost constraints, perhaps the President can create a preparatory
commission composed of constitutional experts to assist Congress when it performs the work of
a Constituent Assembly.

Anything that serves the best interest of the Filipino people is worth considering.

* * *

source: http://thestandard.com.ph/opinion/columns/out-of-the-box-by-rita-linda-v-jimeno/212055/what-s-with-conass-.html

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph