“If then, say, charter change actually gets going, one option that may be considered is for a constitutional convention to be called”
Given the level and even the nature of partisanship in our politics, where allegiance to a political family or personality is paramount, whoever will be elected as President will not have the support of many, or the majority to pursue Constitutional reforms, it will always be seen as self-serving.
Meanwhile, the changes we need can only be realized if we change the Constitution, if we change the mechanism that chooses our leaders and have them accountable.
In case we have not given enough reflection, the Constitution is called the fundamental law, because it is most fundamental, that all laws are based on it, that no law can be passed that is not consistent with it.
That is why it is called a Constitution in the first place; it is supposed to “constitute.”
It is also called the “charter” as, essentially, it provides direction for the country, that it provides the aspirations of the people.
The importance of a Constitution is therefore evident, yet we have not really given enough effort to have one that is really indisputably ours or one that is enacted under normal circumstances.
The 1935 Constitution was enacted under the auspices of the United States, then our colonial master.
There was good reason the 1971 Constitutional Convention was convened, to finally have a Constitution that is truly ours, but it was to be superseded with the declaration of martial and instead we would have the 1973 Constitution.
And now we have the 1987 Constitution, drafted not by a Convention but a Commission.
That would have been alright, except that it was purely executive driven and even given a timetable to finish.
Most importantly, it cannot be denied it is a Constitution enacted more as a response to martial law the country has just gone through then. The result emasculated the government, both the executive and the legislature.
There is then so much reason to proceed and change the Constitution.
Assuming there is agreement to its being necessary, we now have to settle the question of how, whether to go through the ideal process of a Constitutional Convention or convene Congress as a Constituent Assembly.
There is a good reason why many would tend to consider a Constitutional Convention as it is most ideal.
We will be electing delegates to the convention, a body that will be tasked to draft a new Constitution.
The question is, if we will be able to elect members to said body that is somehow different or unrelated from those who are in Congress.
The answer of course is no. The election of delegates will likely be subject to the same conditions and or considerations as we elect any and all of our elected political leaders.
Some will not just accept that as an important consideration.
After all, the convening of a convention will have to be subject to a congressional resolution convening it.
There is then a way to put provisions in the resolution that will determine who can be elected as a delegate.
For example, someone suggested during a public hearing in Congress that a provision in the resolution calling for a convention prevents anyone related up to the 4th degree of consanguinity to anyone in Congress.
On the other hand, if the anti-political dynasty proposed legislations did not make it in Congress before, what is the likelihood a provision consistent to it may be considered in a resolution convening a constitutional convention?
Going by all these, the only viable option it appears is the constituent assembly.
Members of Congress are elected after all, albeit that many are from the same names we have always been seeing in government and/or Congress for a long time.
The equal opportunity that is supposedly ensured in the Constitution simply cannot be relied on as the circumstances of elections as we have it in place today favor those who have the resources to run for office.
We don’t have real political parties to begin with.
That would have made a significant difference, especially if it is the political party that will be responsible for raising campaign funds necessary for one’s bid to be elected.
If then, say, charter change actually gets going, one option that may be considered is for a constitutional convention to be called.
But the membership would still be those who are already elected in Congress only that they will be joined by some members who will be appointed.
This way, there is room for those who have already been identified as experts, or those renowned people who can contribute to the drafting of a good Constitution.
This is an option that was seriously considered by the 2018 Consultative Committee to Review the 1987 Constitution that drafted the Bayanihan Philippine Federal Constitution.
It can be a different combination as long as having a way to have qualified personalities to be members is seriously considered.
(The author is currently a faculty at the San Beda University Graduate School of Law and Executive Director of the pioneer NGO on Local Governance, the Local Government Development Foundation or LOGODEF. He was also a member of the Consultative Committee to Review the 1987 Constitution convened by former President Rodrigo Duterte that drafted the ‘Bayanihan Federal Constitution of the Philippines.’)