First word
THE road to constitutional reform will remain mired in false hopes and false turns, despite the recent reports about 1) a break in the deadlock between the houses of Congress on the issue; and 2) the appointment by President Duterte of a consultative committee to review and recommend amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Neither action bears directly on the objective of amending or revising the Constitution, which it provides for. Neither will produce profound or superficial change in the Charter; they will just prolong the interminable talk and contentiousness.

It is dispiriting to see so many of our public officials confused about the correct way to proceed in amending the Constitution. The document provides an entire article for its amendment or revision: Article XVII Amendments or Revisions.

The article consists of only two sections. After five paragraphs, it is over and done.

What’s so difficult about the instructions? Not a single word is hard to understand, requiring recourse to a dictionary.

What Article XVII says
Simply stated, the article says that the Constitution may be amended or revised in any of three ways:

First, by the Congress through the vote of three- fourths of all its members;

Second, by a constitutional convention, either called by two-thirds of all the members of Congress, or approved by the electorate in a referendum; or

Third, by the people through a system of initiative under the conditions indicated in the provision.

In any of these three ways of amendment, the revisions or amendments must be submitted to the people for ratification, and the same shall be valid only when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.

The article does not mention anywhere the agency of a consensus by the leaders of the House and the Senate on Charter reform (Congress members must vote in any case); or the agency of a consultative commission for constitution review created by the president of the Philippines.

There is no mention anywhere in the article of the president taking part in the Charter change process. He appears, by implication, to be just an observer of the drama of change, although he should be expected to be a partisan on the political issues involved.

All the anxieties that whatever Duterte wants on Charter change, he will get, are completely belied by the law. He has no part to play unless Congress lets him in.

Leaders break the deadlock
It looked like there would be a breakthrough in the constitutional reform effort, when the leaders of the House and the Senate announced on Thursday that they had broken the deadlock in discussions of Charter change, by agreeing to first settle the structure of the government under a new constitution before deciding on the manner of voting on amendments.

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez announced on radio that he, House Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd, and Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto 3rd, reached an interim deal over dinner on Wednesday night.

The Speaker disclosed: “We agreed that we will talk about the details first; for example, the structure of the government until we complete the new Constitution. Afterwards, it will not make any difference anymore if we vote separately or jointly.”

For his part, Pimentel said: “We have decided to focus on the revisions that have to be made rather than on how these changes will be effected.”

“But we need to determine first what exact amendments or revisions will benefit the people. After this we can tackle how we will go about enacting these amendments in a manner that maximizes citizen involvement and is consistent with the law.”

The Senate and the House differ over how to vote on Charter amendments or revisions, as there is no clear provision for such in the 1987 Constitution.

The Senate wants the two chambers to vote separately because the senators would be outnumbered in a joint session.

But whether the votes are counted jointly or separately, a senator’s vote will always count as one vote in a sea of votes by the representatives.

The House leadership believes that the House can convene itself as a constituent assembly and propose and approve changes to the Constitution even without the participation of senators, as long as the required two-thirds votes of all members of Congress are reached. This will require a ruling by the Supreme Court.

No consensus on federalism
Does the leaders’ consensus hurdle the procedural and substantive quarrels on Charter change?

Hardly.

Alvarez claimed that there was a consensus on the shift to a federal structure of government, but he qualified himself, saying that discussions are still in the early stages and that more meetings and discussions between the congressional leaders would be held over the next few weeks.

Opposition legislators have accused the House and Senate majority of monopolizing the discussions and decisions on Charter change.

Bayan Muna party-list representative Carlos Zarate said: “If the ones who will discuss Cha-cha are just the House and Senate leaders, then many would view this as suspect at the very least, even dangerous, and at worst, self-serving.”

Others still have not forgotten about the need for Congress to convene as a constituent assembly. But Alvarez is correct; there is no mention of a constituent assembly in amending the Constitution. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J, apolitical commentator and a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, contends that Congress as the elected legislature is already a constituent assembly; as such, it is empowered to propose amendments and revisions to the Constitution, but such amendments must be approved by three-fourths of all the members of Congress, in order to be submitted to the electorate in a plebiscite.

Duterte’s consultative committee
As if wearied and frustrated by the acrimony between the House and the Senate on Charter change, President Duterte on Thursday decided to name 19 members of a 25-member “consultative committee” that will be tasked to review the 1987 Constitution.

Duterte signed on January 24 the appointment papers of the members of the body, who will be led by former chief justice Reynato Puno as chairman.

Former Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and former Supreme Court justice Bienvenido Reyes were also named members of the committee.

In December 2016, Duterte signed Executive Order No. 10, forming a consultative committee to review the 1987 Constitution. He cited the need to review the Constitution to ensure that it is “truly reflective of the needs, ideals, and aspirations of the Filipino people.”

Duterte’s 25-member committee will study, conduct consultations and review provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including those on the structure and powers of the government, local governance, and economic policies.

There is one catch, however. The committee has no constitutional authority to propose revisions of the Constitution. It does not have the status of even just a congressional committee. It is a presidential creation, by a president who has no business proposing amendments or revisions to the Constitution. This is purely an exercise within the executive department or the Office of the President.

The best way out so that the work of the consultative committee does not become a total waste, is for the President to use his influence and leverage to persuade the Congress to adopt the recommendations of his committee as draft proposals for constitutional reform. He is nominally party leader of the majority in both houses of Congress.

But Congress can say no, if it wishes. The authority for constitutional amendment is entirely its own. And it can say that it wants to review and propose amendments to the Constitution under its own light.

yenmakabenta@yahoo.com