We doubt, however, that a ConCon dominated by district-elected delegates can deliver such a progressive charter change
I echo others in calling for transparency on the risks involved in changing the 1987 Constitution.
There is no Constitutional process or mandate that can, by force of law, limit the scope of a Charter change.
I do agree with retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio that changing the mode of voting in a Constituent Assembly is a revision and not an amendment. This cannot be done through petition and initiative.
We, as of now, cannot have any assurance that what is being proposed today is and shall remain to be a Charter change of economic provisions, and not of term extensions or of abolition of party-lists – because there is no such limitation known in legal parlance.
When those who assure the public that what will be tinkered are merely the economic provisions, we are left at the mercy of their words and promises.
Many legislators of both chambers recognized such possibility happening.
Some legislators have downplayed such risk by saying that, at the end of the day, the people still have the choice to ratify the specific proposals or not.
The very least that we can do now is to not be unnecessarily occupied by the talking points of how a Constituent Assembly is modeled, scheduled, and financed as if it is the be-all and end-all of this issue, and to not allow charger change’s end to be out of our sights.
Having reminded ourselves of such danger, do we really need to change the Constitution for economic reasons?
No. Those pushing to further liberalize our economy are apparently adept and successful in using the legislative mode in their favor.
A recent example is the amendment of the Public Service Act to ease foreign ownership requirements, the economic impact of which we have not yet seen and felt as advertised by those who aggressively lobbied and pushed for such.
Then why immediately tinker with the Constitution?
Are there Constitutional provisions that need to be revised?
Certainly, some changes are imperative: among others, making self-executory the anti-political dynasty provision; establishing the Commission on Human Rights as an independent Constitutional Commission; modifying and not abolishing the party-list system to make it more responsive to the demand of inclusive representation; and expanding the Bill of Rights to include socio-economic and cultural rights and making violation of such rights actionable before courts of law.
We doubt, however, that a ConCon dominated by district-elected delegates can deliver such a progressive Charter change.
Finally, and most important, will Charter change now make an immediate difference in addressing the big challenges our country is facing?
These are inflation, the climate emergency, human rights violations, the insurgency, corruption, and of course the perennial issues of poverty, inequality, and injustice.
The answer is no.
And so on Charter change now, here I am again: no.