Reform the Constitution Democratically

Reform the Constitution Democratically
Joel Rocamora
Business World, 29 April 2002

Constitutional reform is a good idea whose time has come. In the last few months, accelerating since Holy Week, public discussion of constitutional reform in the media has proliferated. By all indications, the leadership and most members of both the Senate and the House want constitutional reform. It is not just who is supporting constitutional reform that is significant, it is also who is not objecting. We have not, so far heard from Cory and Sin who were the moral leaders of the anti-cha cha movement at the time of Ramos and Estrada.

Because politicians have taken the lead in pushing the issue, the discourse is littered with accusations of politician self-interest. Speaker De Venecia has been forced to disclaim interest in becoming Prime Minister in 2004. President Arroyo has had to use unsatisfactory arguments to deflect accusations that she is only opposed to constitutional reform because she wants to get reelected president in 2004. Senators and congressmen struggle to develop new angles on the issue to get media attention.

But of course, politicians take positions on the basis of self-interest. Our political system does not require that they take positions on issues. But if we oppose all political initiatives embedded with politician self-interest, we would oppose almost everything. We should also be fair to politicians. On ‘large’ issues such as constitutional reform, politicians can think first of the national interest, or locate their self-interest in contending positions on where national interest lies.

If indeed we shifted to a parliamentary system without a massive turnover in politicians, Speaker De Venecia would probably be as good a prime minister as any. His imputed self-interest on this issue becomes almost immaterial. I also think it is perfectly legitimate for Pres. Arroyo to want presidential elections in 2004. Constitutional reform will happen only if the ‘self-interests’ of key political players converge. That is part of the democratic process. It would be more democratic if the rest of us are allowed to participate.

I beg to disagree with Congressmen Nachura and Gonzales and Senate President Drilon. I do not believe that using a Constituent Assembly to amend the constitution would be democratic, or even practical. Given widespread skepticism (spilling over to cynicism) about politicians, a Constituent Assembly would be perceived as no more than politicians changing the constitution to suit their interests. This route would risk the revival of the anti-cha cha movement which torpedoed the Ramos and Estrada initiatives.

It also does not make sense to rush the constitutional reform process. The constitution is a crucial political instrument. The amendment process should be give enough time for a full-blown public debate on the issues. The baranggay assemblies proposal is too vulnerable to accusations that it sounds like Marcos’ chosen method for ‘ratifying’ his constitution. If constitutional reform is rushed so that a new constitution is in effect before the 2004 elections, Pres. Arroyo will mobilize all the resources of her office to prevent it. You would revive the EDSA 2 coalition for a wrong cause. The Constituent Assembly proposal before 2004 is a dead end.

The De Venecia and Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan proposal for Constitutional Convention delegates to be elected in 2004 appears to make the most sense. The proposal addresses most of the concerns raised. It would give us two years to organize a full blown, nationwide consultative process. Democratic participation would occur at the beginning of the process (the election of delegates) and at the end (the referendum). Since Pres.Arroyo can still run in 2004, and remain as president until 2010 (if she wins), it should be possible to get her to support this formula. We can also save on costs by electing delegates during the scheduled 2004 elections.

This will be the third time in as many administrations that constitutional reform is proposed. The first two times it did not happen because the partisan interests of incumbent presidents got in the way. Constitutional reform keeps coming back because it is rooted in the public’s widespread dissatisfaction with our politicians and our political system. The last time dissatisfaction peaked, it produced EDSA 2, an extra constitutional upheaval. Instead of gearing up for more EDSAs, we should amend the constitution so we do not have to go to the streets to remove a president.

Copyright 2002 Business World