Inquirer Editorial

Editorial : Better way to Charter change

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has made a good start toward the amendment of the Constitution by announcing that she would form a consultative constitutional commission that would draft proposed amendments to the Charter. A commission could make a thorough study, then write the proposed amendments that would be considered either by a constitutional convention or Congress meeting as a constituent assembly.

She could follow that up by scheduling the election of delegates to the constitutional convention. She would be well advised to abandon her announced plan of leaving the job of amending the Constitution to Congress meeting as a constituent assembly.

Earlier this year, Ms Arroyo said she was in favor of a constitutional convention, but last month, after experiencing the most serious political crisis of her presidency, she changed her mind and said she was for a constituent assembly. Well, she can change her mind again and go for a constitutional convention, if she wants to promote the national interest.

In the first place, there is no need to speed up the amendment of the Constitution, unless it is going to be a part of a "graceful exit" for Ms Arroyo. She said in her recent State of the Nation Address: "The mode of Charter change is the exclusive prerogative of Congress. But a constituent assembly may well give our people the quickest reforms."

But why subject the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, to a fast-track procedure? Proposed amendments to the Constitution should be discussed and debated thoroughly. The constitutional convention (or the constituent assembly, whichever mode is finally chosen) would be amending the fundamental law that will be the guiding light of the nation not only for this generation but also for many generations yet to come. Certainly this task should be done not in haste, but with a great deal of deliberation and circumspection.

If we are to proceed slowly and with deliberation in amending the Constitution, then it is best done by a constitutional convention. A constituent assembly made up of the members of Congress would be an assembly motivated largely by self-interest. The legislators, once functioning as members of the constituent assembly, can be expected to promote and protect their personal, familial and parochial interests. They could not even pass a really effective land reform law. They would not even give up their wasteful and graft-ridden pork barrel. And now they would be expected to have the best interest of the nation at heart in amending the Constitution?

The Citizens for ConCon said that "without the perks and powers of Congress to protect, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention can be expected to be less self-serving, more objective, and thus more credible." Inquirer columnist Juan Mercado has warned that a constituent assembly would be an assembly of self-seekers. He quoted H.L. Mencken, who said that an assembly of self-seekers would be "a place where Jesus Christ and Judas would be equals. But the betting odds would favor Judas."

We all know that many times in the past the national interest was betrayed by Congress. Are we going to see a repeat of these betrayals in the event that the task of amending the Constitution is given to Congress?

A constitutional convention would be less partisan and more independent-minded than a constituent assembly. Its delegates would be elected by the people on the strength of their qualifications and not their celebrity or political or dynastic ties. The election of delegates should see the emergence of new leaders with a new vision and fresh perspectives.

Legislators who oppose the constitutional convention proposal say that it would need the allocation of new money "which we don't have." Estimates of the cost of holding a constitutional convention range from P2.5 billion to P8 billion. If our legislators can find sources of funds for their pork barrel, surely they can find a way to fund a convention. But they should not focus on the cost of holding a constitutional convention. They should not consider the outlay a huge cost but money well spent, an investment for a more progressive and stable future.

It is well that the current political crisis has brought to the fore the need to amend the Constitution. It is a task that has been postponed many times. It's time we gave serious thought to the idea of revising the Charter to make it more responsive to the economic, social and political ills plaguing the nation. But let the task of amending it be done by a constitutional convention, not by a discredited body like Congress.