By Danilo P. Padua, PhD

The 1935 Philippine constitution was ratified under the watchful eyes of the Americans. Thirty six years later in 1971, a constitutional convention (ConCon) was tasked to amend it. Rightly so, as it reeks of colonialism. Interested, well-meaning individuals, including many good politicians, hit the campaign trail to get the nod of the people to become members of the ConCon. They rightly believed that the prize of joining the exercise was not for their own self-aggrandizement but for the future of the land. I can fondly remember campaigning, as then a high school junior in Quezon city, for the late intrepid newsman, Joe Burgos.
Unfortunately, the good work of that convention was somehow watered down when it was finally ratified in 1973 during the first year of Martial Law. They called it, the Marcos constitution.
Just fourteen years later, therefore, another ConCon was convened whose members were handpicked. The group was composed of some of the best minds at that time. One can easily imagine though, that the result was tainted with emotionalism and bias which should have no place in crafting a constitution. Why? The perceived atrocities of ML was still very fresh, and most of the members were anti-Marcos. While many of those who still believe in Marcos were equally qualified or even better, they were not given the light of day to participate.
The result was called a Cory constitution, which was approved in 1987. About thirty years afterwards, when the blues and the yellows were not dominating the local political landscape, we are again faced with the specter of changing a faulty constitution. Again, rightly so!
The question: Constituent Assembly (ConAss) or ConCon as the manner of doing it?
The House of representatives is hell-bent on a charter change via a ConAss, meaning that congressmen think that their collective brains is enough to tackle a gargantuan mind task of securing a solid legal foundation for the future. The Senate seems not to be in a hurry to dance the cha-cha with the Lower House.
While the Lower House was trying to bully the Upper Chamber for the approval of ConAss, Pres. Duterte issued an order creating a Consultative Committee to review the charter and for it to make recommendations as to what parts of the constitution should be amended. To me, the identified committee members were devoid of any anti-federalism advocates, such as former CJ Hilario Davide. So, your guess is as good as mine. But what should be convened later to act on those recommendations, or do something more, is not yet clear. ConAss or ConCon?
Presented here are seven reasons why I think ConAss is not the right tool for cha-cha.
1. A constitution should be beyond party loyalty. It is not a fleeting fancy. The process of evolving, amending, or changing it is not like filing a bill, conducting some “consultation”, discussing and debating it among themselves in the chamber, then marshal party members to approve it. The constitution is a grand document that affects generations and is not subject to amendments at the slightest discovery of defects, unlike an ordinary law.
2. Politicians are not the best group to tackle a very important, comprehensive, futuristic document such as the constitution. Their minds are conditioned to think primarily of today, and the future is not so clear in their jaundiced eyes. They are more of the “me” type, and not of the “we” kind. Many of them are not even the cerebral type
3. The best minds for the job are outside of the presently debased halls of congress. They are in the academe, in business, among the senior citizens, among the youths, among the women organizations, etc who disdain politics, do not have the resources to wage a political campaign, or simply uninterested in the dirty game of politics. They could be interested however in being a part of intellectual sword play where the prize is a stable government, protection of the welfare of the people, and championing the rights of the citizens
4. Present crop of representatives are not exactly a model of temperance or propriety. Their leaders are even proud to flaunt their follies in front of an unbelieving, disgusted public. People like that could hardly be trusted to show care and concern for the people and much less for the future generations. Their best therefore could really be contrary to what is best for the people. In their hands, a constitution will just be treated like a simple piece of legal document.
Many of the present crop of congressmen are elected only due to financial circumstances, not because they have the brains to cross mind games with others. They are not even credited with house bills primarily authored by them.
5. Most congressmen now belong to one party, they will surely be vulnerable to dictation/manipulation by the party bosses. This is specially due to the fact that many of them are turncoats or political butterflies. As such, they can not be expected to be impartial, just, or fair in their thinking and decisions. Many were voted into office by party affiliation only, not because they have the tools to craft laws. Present congressmen are now biased to a form of government being espoused by the government-federalism
6. Constituent Assembly for charter change will be grossly underrepresented by sector or even by region. The present congressmen could not possibly and plausibly represent all the major sectors of our society. Just check their backgrounds.
7. People are not given proper chance to choose who should represent them in the noble task of crafting a constitution. With ConCon, they may just be given such opportunity. With Con Ass, more people may not be aware that their future is now being discussed – by people who couldn’t care less for the future of others.
ConAss or ConCon for the cha-cha? There may be a third alternative which is reaslly some sort of a compromise. It was former CJ Reynato Puno, who said before he was designated as the chairman of the Consultative Committee for charter review: It could be ConAss + handpicked members.**