DESPITE the President saying that charter change is not a priority of his administration, a House of Representatives panel approved a resolution that called for a constitutional convention to propose changes to the fundamental law of the land.

The House Committee on Constitutional Amendments voted 16-3-1 to approve the resolution of both houses calling for the constitutional convention. 

But this measure, still unnumbered, will need concurrence from the Senate, where it is expected to face an uphill climb.

Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri has taken his cue from the chief executive and said this was not an urgent matter for the Senate either.

The House committee is also tackling a separate bill that would implement the call for a constitutional convention. This would contain, among others, the qualifications for the constitutional convention delegates and the method for selecting them. 

The panel has suspended deliberations on this accompanying bill to give members time to study its provisions. 

What is a constitutional convention? 

A constitutional convention is one of three modes to propose changes to the 1987 constitution.

It will be made up of delegates who will propose changes or even draw up a completely new charter. 

The constitution states that Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a constitutional convention. It could also, through a majority vote of its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

Another way to propose changes to the constitution is through Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.

This had been a contentious matter in previous years, as the Senate and the House of Representatives debated on whether the two chambers should vote jointly or separately to propose the changes. The manner of voting was not specified in the constitution.

Senators in the past had insisted on separate voting because the 24-member chamber would be completely overwhelmed in a joint voting, given that the House has more than 300 members. 

The third manner for changing the constitution is through a people’s initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters. Every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of registered voters. 

Congress should provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Who will make up the con con? 

Now that the House panel has recommended the constitutional convention, it will then prescribe who will make up the body. 

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments is still deliberating on the measure to implement the call for the convention.

The initial proposals include electing delegates from every legislative district in the country, with each district having one delegate.

But retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno proposed that the House go for a hybrid convention, where there will be a mix of elected and appointed delegates. 

This would ensure that experts and stakeholders, such as legal luminaries, economists, and members of the indigenous people, would be part of the main body proposing changes to the constitution.  

Puno warned that the elected delegates might just be proxies or factotums of political dynasties and economic oligarchs. 

Several members of the committee were receptive to Puno’s proposal.

Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor, who backed the idea, said the appointed delegates should be chosen by the House Speaker and the Senate President. This is because the convention will be an exercise of Congress’ constituent power, he said. 

The House panel will tackle the details for the implementation of the constitutional convention at its next hearing. 

The con con’s output 

The convention will propose changes to the constitution, but these will not become effective immediately.

Any amendment or revision to the constitution will still have to be ratified by a majority of voters in a plebiscite. This will be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days after the approval of the amendment or revision. 

Why is cha cha controversial?

Previous attempts to change the 36-year-old constitution all failed.  

Efforts to tinker with the charter have always generated controversy. This is not because many believe the constitution is perfect, but because of fears that provisions will also be revised for self-serving political ends.

Several proponents of charter change say that their goal is to amend or revise the economic provisions that they believe are too restrictive for the entry of foreign investments. 

But critics are wary as any move to amend the charter will also open up other provisions of the constitution to changes. There had been concerns in previous years, for instance, that politicians would pursue longer terms for elected officials. 

Any charter change move done during the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is also expected to have another layer of controversy.

This is because the 1987 constitution was specifically crafted to include safeguards to prevent a repeat of the abuses under the martial law regime of the President’s father, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. 

These safeguards include the power of the Supreme Court to review all official acts to determine grave abuse of discretion. Another is the constitution’s limits to the duration and effect of any martial law declaration. 

Marcos Jr. cold to cha cha?

President Marcos does not appear bent on changing the 1987 constitution. According to him, it was not a priority for him because there are many other things that have to be done.

But with recent moves in Congress to push for a constitutional convention, some can’t help but be wary. 

Liberal Party president and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman asked if the President may have actually given his “covert assent” to charter change moves. 

“There must be an overwhelming furtive reason why the Cha-Cha caravan is rolling fast in the House of Representatives despite President Marcos’ avowal that Charter Change is not in his priority agenda,” Lagman said in a statement.

He doubts that members of the supermajority coalition in the House have learned to be independent of the executive. 

“Perhaps, it is because the President must have given his covert assent to Cha-Cha even as he appears to be distancing himself from it,” he said. 

Will the President do anything to stop the cha cha?