Wednesday, December 13, 2006 Nalzaro: Do it legally, morally By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
POWER-hungry politicians. This is how I describe some congressmen who supported the move to convene the House of Representatives into a constituent assembly without the concurrence and participation of the Senate.
Some of these House members are lawyers, even bar topnotchers, and yet they ignored their knowledge of the law to satisfy their selfish interests and political motives. Good that after strong opposition by various sectors, they have shifted gears and are now calling for Charter change (Cha-cha) through a constitutional convention (Con-Con).
House Speaker Jose de Venecia, who is dreaming of becoming the country’s first prime minister under the envisioned parliamentary/unicameral system, is behind the Cha-cha turmoil.
De Venecia and his gang claimed that what they did was but an initiative that they firmly believed was legally possible. Besides, the Supreme Court would still be asked to interpret the pertinent provision of the Constitution once their move was challenged. But were these congressmen experimenting?
Section 1, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution states: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution maybe proposed by (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention.” Congress, constitutional experts say, has two chambers, the House and the Senate, considering that our legislature is bicameral.
The House leadership, therefore, will be committing political suicide if it pushes through with its “evil desire” of tinkering the Charter in an illegal, immoral and highly irregular process. They are inviting a political backlash against the Arroyo administration.
I am for Cha-cha, as there are provisions in the Constitution that need to be revised to go with the times. But there should be no shortcuts.
Con-Con is the best and fairest mode of amending our Constitution, although they say it is too expensive. But so what? If government can spend huge amounts of money for non-priority projects, why can't it shell out a few billions of pesos for the revision of the fundamental law? Should we impose a price tag for the country's future?
And why hurry? Our government will not collapse and we will not die if our Constitution is not changed next year. Why not wait for the appropriate time? Or if congressmen really want to amend our Constitution now, for the country and the people's sake they should do it legally and morally.
