Dr_ Abueva

The Right Timing and Mode of Charter Change: Call a Constitutional Convention and elect its delegates in 2010

By Dr. Jose V. Abueva President of Kalayaan College and Director of its Institute of Federal-Parliamentary Democracy, and Chairman of the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change

Statement before the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, House of Representatives, November 25, 2008 Since 1972 our country has suffered from the tragic failure of collective political leadership and therefore of poor governance, despite some reforms and notable gains brought about by some outstanding national leaders and by several outstanding local government leaders. Consequently, more and more citizens are dissatisfied with our kind of democracy and alienated from our political institutions: the presidency, Congress, the judiciary, elections, political parties, the national bureaucracy, local governments, and so on. Our people deserve a far better system of government and governance than the present one under the 1987 Constitution. It has not enabled us to solve our worsening problems and to make timely responses to the challenges we face in an unstable and rapidly changing world. We should not delay further the needed amendments to the 1987 Constitution that will help us gradually and steadily to transform our political system and improve governance. With archaic and dysfunctional political institutions, even good leaders cannot be truly effective in relation to our mounting needs and problems. We have also learned that an evil president turned dictator can destroy our fragile democracy and reverse development. Proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution are long overdue. These include: (1) replacing our dysfunctional presidential government and its built-in conflict among the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, with a unified parliamentary government and, along with it, reforming our electoral and political party system; (2) changing our highly centralized and ineffective unitary system to a federal system that will promote local and regional development and bring government closer to the people and more responsive and accountable to them; and (3) removing the restrictive provisions on foreign investments: to hasten economic development, raise more revenues, and provide more employment, and better infrastructure and public services. Every year members of Congress propose amendments to the Constitution. In the presidential election in 2004 only President Arroyo proposed Charter change. She has pursued it, on and off, and provoked continuing opposition.

2 For various reasons, including their conflicting ambitions and vested interests, members of the House and the Senate are wary of each other’s motives and proposed amendments. They cannot agree on them and obtain the vote of ¾ of the members of each of chamber. In this political stalemate in 2006 some citizens’ groups and local government leaders united behind a people’s initiative to propose Charter change. But the COMELEC refused to support the petition for a people’s initiative of the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) supported by more than the required votes of at least 10 percent of all the registered voters, and of at least three percent of the registered votes in every one of the congressional districts. Moreover, the Panganiban Supreme Court upheld the Comelec’s inaction and disapproved of the petition for a people’s initiative by a vote of 8 to 7. The political opposition, the Catholic church, civil society groups, and the media were also against Charter change at that time. There was widespread suspicion and fear that President Arroyo would use it to prolong her stay in power beyond 2010. In late 2006 the desperate move of the pro-Administration majority in the House of Representatives failed to propose the change to a unicameral parliamentary government without the Senate’s concurrence, and was widely condemned for its unilateral action. Despite their intrinsic merits and validity, Senator Pimentel’s present proposal in the Senate to shift to federalism and the proposed change to a parliamentary government in the House are not likely to succeed. Similar proposals of the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter change formed by President Arroyo gained favor and support in its regional consultations but later provoked rejection because of the undemocratic and self-serving proposal to suspend elections in 2007. The proposals also suffered from the President’s low approval ratings. Even if the House can muster the ¾ majority to propose its amendments, the divided Senate is not likely to join the House. Formidable political and popular opposition to Charter change remains as the House again insists on a unilateral approval of its amendments sans the Senate’s concurrence, if only to get the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling on the issue. So how can Congress propose the amendments to the people in a national plebiscite before 2010? So far none of the presidential aspirants in the coming 2010 national elections is saying anything about changing the Constitution. Most of them also have vested interests in the status quo. This, plus distrust of the President, is why the political opposition, some business interests, and other partisans, including former President Aquino and some authors of the 1987 Constitution, continue to oppose Charter change. In general the people and the media are against Charter change initiated by the House or the Senate or both, because they believe the legislators are self-serving and will be self-serving. Indeed, many people are also distrustful of our senators and representatives and their institutions.

3 In these paralyzing circumstances, there is one alternative worth trying. I respectfully propose that our national and local political leaders, business, civil society, and the media support the alternative that Congress call a constitutional convention whose delegates shall be elected by the people in the general elections in May 2010. The chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments in the House (Rep. Victor Ortega) is publicly in favor of this manner of changing the Constitution. His counterpart in the Senate (Sen. Richard Gordon) is reportedly in favor of a constitutional convention as well. Various groups including religious organizations, have said that they favor a constitutional convention. Concurrent election of delegates in 2010 will also save the country the extra expense of a separate election. To save time and money, Congress should provide the proposed constitutional convention with funding to last up to only six or eight months to accomplish its work. Many constitutional studies and proposals already exist. The 1987 Constitution does not need to be rewritten entirely because it has many good provisions that deserve to be retained. Now as ever the supreme challenge to our political leaders and our people is to summon the collective will and wisdom to reform our political institutions. To put the common good and the public interest above their own. To work together for a better future for all Filipinos. We cannot wait for a change in our character as a people (as some bishops tell us), or depend on changing our leaders through our usual elections, as many insist. First we have to help ourselves with fundamental institutional reforms through Charter change; then pray for God’s grace to help us pursue our vision. President John F. Kennedy once said that those who refuse to make peaceful change possible make a violent revolution inevitable. We are not wanting in those who propose extra-constitutional change or revolution.