[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=”]
[/av_textblock]
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ PEOPLE POWWOW’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY HERBERT VEGO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
January 28, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
On Sen. JV Ejercito’s view vs railroaded federalism
“HE IS FOR Constitutional Convention,” so said former Iloilo City councilor Julienne “Jam-Jam” Baronda during a chance meeting with this writer at Hotel del Rio. “He” refers to Sen. JV Ejercito, for whom she works as political officer.
“Para sa bayan,” she quoted Ejercito’s battle cry, this time specifically indicating the senator’s personal preference for an independent body to revise the 1987 Constitution aimed at shifting from the present unitary to federal form of government.
From what I had read in the Manila newspapers, however, Ejercito would also be “amenable to transforming Congress into a Constituent Assembly“ (Con-Ass).
No doubt, most of the legislators would go for Con-Ass. But the crux of the matter is whether the senators and congressmen would vote jointly or separately. The congressmen prefer “jointly,” which would require three-fourths of the combined senators’ and congressmen’s votes to approve a new Constitution. But the senators insist it should be “separately,” otherwise they would be “irrelevant” because there are only 23 of them as against 292 congressmen.
Some of them worry over the possible emergence of a railroaded federal government, where the Senate would be abolished. No self-preserving senator would support any move that would diminish his power.
Anyway, setting that argument aside, the senators are correct. The two houses of Congress being “co-equal,” our 23 senators wield the strength of 292 congressmen. Hence, the decision of 3/4 of each house should abide.
Their equality is evident in their day-to-day law-making chores. Whatever bills the House of Representatives pass, the Senate must likewise pass before it could be forwarded to the President for approval into law.
What does the present Constitution say on revision or amendments via Con-Ass?
It simply says it may be amended “upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members.”
Sad to say, considering the obvious subservience of the majority of both houses to the present Rodrigo Duterte presidency, their members are personally and politically motivated. Whether they vote separately or jointly, they would not be expected to propose constitutional provisions inimical to their political career.
Sen. Ejercito is right: the best method to amend the Constitution is through a Constitutional Convention whose members would be directly elected by the people. A new Constitution should divest Congress of any opportunity to perpetuate themselves and their kind in power.
As correctly observed by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, while Con-Ass would cost cheaper than Con-Con, “that’s a cheap argument. We should not count the cost of writing a Constitution because a good Constitution is the best investment a people can make.”
Puno ran short of saying that the present Congress in the role of Con-Ass could not be expected to right a wrong in the 1987 Constitution as embedded in Article II Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Unfortunately, while anti-dynasty bills have been filed since 1987, none has gone beyond first base. One of them, filed in the 15th Congress by Congressman Edgar Erice (LP, Caloocan City), said, “No spouse, or person related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half-blood, to an incumbent elective official seeking re-election shall be allowed to hold or run for any local or national elective office in the same election.”
With that junked bill in mind, why trust the same fellows to behave better the moment they double as a Constituent Assembly? (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
