THE House of Representatives approved last December 11 Resolution of Both Houses No. 15, in which it proposed a draft Constitution to replace the present 1987 Constitution, basically calling for a presidential-bicameral-federal system of government. The resolution contained a proposed new Constitution with all its detailed provisions, such as the terms of office of the president and other national officials as well as legislators.
It included some provisions proposed by the Consultative Committee headed by former Chief Justice Renato Puno but also several provisions that can only be seen as reflecting the narrow interests of some congressmen. The House-proposed Constitution removed the present provision against political dynasties, removed term limits of lawmakers, and removed the articles on social justice and human rights.
The sudden approval of Resolution No. 15 was a big surprise, considering Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s repeated declaration that the present 17th Congress no longer has enough time to draft a new Constitution as a Constituent Assembly and that this matter will have to be left to the next – the 18th Congress whose members will be elected in the midterm elections on May 13, 2019.
That was indeed the proper position to take, as the drafting of a Constitution must not be rushed. This is especially true for our next Constitution as it involves a major change – reorganizing the entire Philippine government to create several regional states, each with its own executive department, legislature, and judicial system. They would all be under a federal national government with all the present national departments and agencies.
It took the Consultative Committee headed by former Chief Justice Renato Puno six months to come up with its draft which was immediately subjected to intense criticism, especially for its lack of provisions for the tremendous expense for the added bureaucracy.
Early this week, the presidents of Ateneo schools all over the country issued a joint statement saying that open discussion and debate are critical in crafting reform initiatives. “Sadly this process of deliberation has been undermined and hijacked by the recent move of Congress to push for Charter change,” the Jesuit educators said.
What is needed is a wide and more consultative discussion, a genuine and participatory national dialogue on constitutional reform, the educators said. Drafting of a new Constitution could take time and cannot be bound by a constricting timetable as the term of President Duterte, they added.
The Senate has already declared it will not participate in a Constituent Assembly voting as one, rather than as two separate bodies – the House and the Senate. Perhaps when it holds its separate sessions on a new Constitution, it could invite various groups, such as the Ateneo presidents, to submit their proposals for key provisions, if not an entire Constitution. When the two chambers finally meet to reconcile their versions of the proposed Constitution, it would then be more likely to be the product of a national consensus.
