E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Compare the costs
Sunday, 05 11, 2003
A national opinion survey shows that nationwide nearly four out of every five voters agree that the Constitution should be amended or revised. This is validated by the space devoted to this raging issue in mass media, indicating the extent to which the citizens would like the changes to be made. A Constitution that is too detailed, and therefore leaves limited leg room for legislation to realize the intended policies; or whose provisions are ambiguous and does not provide a sufficient hierarchical guide to address competing claims; or one which contains rigid and restrictive economic provisions; or one which imposes a form of government that may no longer be the response to what the majority of the citizens prefer, certainly needs to be amended or revised.
The only sore point in this debate is the mode of amending or revising the 1987 Constitution. The Charter provides for two principal modes, that is, by way of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), or by Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass). (The third mode is by way of People’s Initiative). Whatever may be the preferred mode to amend or revise the Constitution, it would do well to compare the first two modes in order to make the public realize the advantage of one over the other.
Where the case involves a mere amendment or change of specific provisions of the Constitution, it is better that this is made by direct legislative action, or by Con-Ass. When the matter involves a mere amendment or change specific provisions of the Constitution, it is better that this is made by direct legislative action, or by Con-Ass. When the matter involves an overhaul of the entire Constitution, however, it is advisable to entrust the task to a Constitutional Convention, which will have more time, opportunity and a wide-ranging expertise to discharge it.
A Con-Ass has the inherent safeguard against the intrusion of partisan political and business interests, by specifying and limiting the areas to be amended. It will be more open and transparent, since the proposed changes are pre-defined in an enabling resolution. Compare this to the plenary authority of the Con-Con, where just about any area can be the subject of amendment or revision.
A Con-Con is independent, and co-equal with the other branches of government. It is imbued with plenary powers, and cannot be dictated upon on how it will conduct its work and when to conclude it. A Con-Con could revise or overhaul the entire Constitution. In contrast, a Con-Ass could finish its work within a much shorter period, limited to fleshing out a specific list of proposals, and become functus oficio at a date and time stated in the enabling resolution.
A Con-Ass is more economical. This mode will avoid unnecessary expenditure of public funds. A Con-Con certainly is more expensive, since it necessarily entails expenses to cover the following: Election of delegates to the convention; salaries and allowances of the delegates and their staff; miscellaneous operating expenses of the delegates; capital outlay for office equipment and furniture; rental of office space for delegates; mobilization for a secretariat of the convention; and, undertaking the required national plebiscite. A Con-Ass, on the other hand, is less expensive since it can make do with the regular funds and personnel already allocated to members of Congress. Additional expenses may come only in the form of additional staff, publications, office supplies, and additional maintenance costs.
A study conducted by the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws under Sen. Ed Angara reveals the following interesting figures:
It will take P2.4 billion to conduct separate elections for delegates to the Con-Con, or if the elections for the purpose were to be held simultaneous with the May 2004 elections, it will be at a cost of P709 million. Obviously, no such expense will be entailed for a Con-Ass.
Once a Con-Con is in operation, it will take P1.97 billion to fund a year’s work. Considering that a Con-Con, once convened, determines its own pace of work and agenda, it is possible that the work could be undertaken over a period of more than one year, and one can just imagine the extent of the expenses that will be incurred necessary to make the Con-Con operate. Compare that to the expense of P95.6 million for a 6-month’s work for the Con-Ass. Considering the limited agenda of the Con-Ass, it could be in operation for a shorter period, thus lesser expense.
The amendments or revisions to the Constitution will have to be submitted to a plebiscite. For the proposals of the Con-Ass, the plebiscite could be held simultaneous with the national elections in May 2004. There would practically be no additional cost, since all that will be needed is for the Commission on Elections to allocate a space in the ballot where the voter can indicate his choice of whether to approve or reject the proposed amendment or revision. Compare that to the cost of P2 billion for the holding of a separate plebiscite to ratify the amendments or revisions to be proposed by the Con-Con.
A recent survey shows that of those who favor Charter change, 54.18 percent prefer that the amendment be made through the Con-Ass. (Of the 94 percent of the country’s barangay officials who declared for Charter change now, 80 percent opted for a Con-Ass). Considering the foregoing comparisons, this larger segment of the populace who prefer Con-Ass could not have decided any better.
000---000
The Journal of the House of Representatives contains a succinct and accurate account of what has taken place in every session. The Journal covering the session when Resolution No. 16 (calling for a Con-Ass) was adopted by a vote of 134-13 on March 19, shows clearly the presence of a quorum. It is certainly the height of irresponsibility (if he did not read the Journal) and intellectual dishonesty (if he read it) for one in the other chamber of Congress to claim that its approval “was short of a required majority” and thereafter conclude that “constitutional reform was on to a poisoned start.” A language mouthed like it does not augur well for a dispassionate but reasoned debate on the Con-Con versus Con-Ass issue. Parliamentary courtesy, Mr. senator.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Journal of the House of Representatives contains a succinct and accurate account of what has taken place in every session. The Journal covering the session when Resolution No. 16 (calling for a Con-Ass) was adopted by a vote of 134-13 on March 19, shows clearly the presence of a quorum. It is certainly the height of irresponsibility (if he did not read the Journal) and intellectual dishonesty (if he read it) for one in the other chamber of Congress to claim that its approval “was short of a required majority” and thereafter conclude that “constitutional reform was on to a poisoned start.” A language mouthed like it does not augur well for a dispassionate but reasoned debate on the Con-Con versus Con-Ass issue. Parliamentary courtesy, Mr. senator.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment