Term Extension Scenarios

I am reproducing below an interesting article from ABS-CBN, which is a collection of scenarios it gathered in the course of reporting on the charter change issue and term extension of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The words in italics are my comments. Here it is:

Scenario 1: Shift to a parliamentary system

The House of Representatives will convene a constituent assembly and proceed to amend the Constitution without the Senate. They will approve a change in the form of government from presidential to parliamentary, and lift the restrictions on foreign capital enshrined in the charter. They will then ask the Commission on Elections to hold a plebiscite. A case will subsequently be filed before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court approves the actions taken by a Senate-less constituent assembly, the plebiscite proceeds, and the administration makes sure the amendments are ratified by the people. Instead of presidential elections, parliamentary elections will be held in 2010. President Arroyo runs for a parliamentary seat in Pampanga, wins, and is chosen as prime minister.

Unless Malacañang manages to fill the Supreme Court with appointees who can be persuaded to follow an absurd view of our bicameral legislative structure under the Constitution, it is highly unlikely this scenario will happen. A Senate-less constituent assembly is so patently illegal that only those willing to commit political suicide, or confident that they could get away with it (Supreme Court justices included), would take this position. Although we already have congressmen who took this path, they still have so much to hurdle, legally and politically.

Scenario 2: Senators cooperate

The House of Representatives will convene a constituent assembly with some administration senators. Although the senators who will join the constituent assembly will not be enough to meet the three-fourths vote requirement in separate voting (18 senators), their presence will somehow “legitimize the process.”

The charter amendments approved by the constituent assembly are then subjected to a plebiscite. The Comelec and the Supreme Court go along with the actions taken by the constituent assembly.

If senators join, which appears to be farfetched right now, the House will pursue joint voting to avoid the problems of separate voting. The issue then on the modality of voting will be brought to the Supreme Court.

Scenario 3: Martial Law

The House of Representatives convenes a constituent assembly without the participation of the Senate. There will be street actions, but violent incidents organized by elements against democracy take place. President Arroyo will then have a basis to declare martial law.

Commenting on scenario three, Soliman said this can happen if the protests are not organized. “It [martial law] will make us vulnerable to infiltration and manipulation. When we act, we must be organized,” she said.

It's possible that con-ass congressmen, in tandem with Malacañang, are taking this direction, given their insistence to pursue a clearly illegal act of proposing amendments to the Constitution without the Senate which, as we are seeing, is continuously galvanizing the public to pour into the streets in protest.

Scenario 4: Shift after Elections

The House of Representatives convenes as a constituent assembly, a case is filed before the Supreme Court, but the process takes so long that it is overtaken by the 2010 elections. Charter change fails. Nevertheless, Mrs. Arroyo runs for and wins a congressional seat in Pampanga. But as soon as the 15th Congress is convened in 2010, charter change is approved, and there is an immediate shift in the form of government from presidential to parliamentary.

Congresswoman Arroyo becomes Prime Minister.

This is interesting, and there are indications that it might just happen, given former DOJ Secretary Gonzalez's view that President Arroyo will run for a parliamentary seat and aspire to become Prime Minster if and when the Constitution is amended, and the president's close political allies in Pampanga are hinting or encouraging her to run for Congress.

(With a report from Carmela Fonbuena, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

Hubris or Stupidity?

"It's up to the individual senators to endorse it. But we will go on to the next stage - convening a constituent assembly - with or without them." Thus, cavalierly proclaims Nueva Ecija Representative Rodolfo Antonino when asked about the next steps to be taken after the House of Representatives passed the much disdained HR 1109 - a resolution seeking to convene Congress into a constitutent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.

As if many have not spoken yet - expressing objections to HR 1109 from mild rebuke to raging outrage, that even led Jesus Is Lord (JIL) head Eddie Villanueva to call the legislators who approved the measure as terrorists and one blogger to compare them with the 9/11 terrorists - congressmen like Antonino, led by House Speaker Prospero Nograles, are still bent on their brazen attempt to introduce changes to our basic law by proceeding with their convoluted view that the House could do it alone.

As we have feared in previous postings, the majority in the House is now moving toward the most stupid thing to do by unilaterally acting to propose amendments to the Constitution. Congressman Mauricio Domogan of Baguio City minced no words when he said that the House will start with the charter change process before President Arroyo gives her State of the Nation address when Congress resumes session in July. The theory that Domogan and Antonino, the proponents' mouthpieces, are pursuing is that only a simple majority is needed to convene Congress into a constitutent assembly and that by the sheer number of those who approved HR 1109 - the gang of 174 - they already achieved sufficient votes for this purpose, thereby negating the need for the senators' votes. Yes, you got that right, these geniuses are actually saying that the Senate does not matter; in fact they intend to send HR 1109 to the individual senators, instead of the Senate as a body, as a token gesture to give them a chance to participate. So much for bicameralism. Even as now they have already amended the Constitution!

So now we can see a bifurcated process unfolding: (1) convening Congress into a constituent assembly, requiring only a simple majority and (2) proposing amendments to the Constitution, requiring three-fourths vote. According to the proponents, in both cases the senators' votes are inconsequential as the House membership alone can muster the needed votes. The grotesqueness of this is readily apparent. How can HR 1109 alone - a pure act of the Lower House - become the decision of Congress that is composed of not only the House but the Senate as well? As we have been repeatedly saying a two-chamber Congress, with limited exceptions, can only act with both Houses acting in concert. And sending HR 1109 to individual senators for their signatures will not satisfy this legal requirement even if majority of them were to sign it, since the acts of the senators could only constitute as an act of the Senate if they are acting as one body, in session assembled.

In addition, as pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, no further act is necessary to convene Congress into a constituent assembly as it is already constituted as such by virtue of Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution. Let me just add that Congress is automatically set in a constituent assembly mode from a purely legislative mode whenever it proposes amendments to the Constitution, even in accordance with the normal legislative route. A joint session is not even essential because what will characterize Congress as a constituent assembly is the act of introducing changes to the Constitution, for the word "constituent" refers to the power to frame a fundamental law or constitution and to introduce changes to it, as opposed to the exercise of mere legislative powers which refers to the enactment or amendment of statutes. What the Constitution only requires is that a three-fourths vote, compared to a simple majority in enacting laws, is necessary to approve the amendments and ratification by the people in a plebiscite to make them binding.

Be that as it may, nothing - legally, that is - will as yet prevent the House from proceeding. As soon as the House reconvenes, it can start proposing amendments. It can perfectly do this in accordance with Congress's power to propose amendments to the Constitution under Article XVII, Section 1. But there is a big "but." Such act would only be the sole act of the Lower House that will have to be transmitted to the Senate for its approval. Given Domogan and Antonino's statements, however, the House would proceed with step two of the bifurcated proceedings by sticking to its absurd logic that the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly (joint session is more like it) has already been approved and, therefore, the House members would be acting or representing Congress as a whole when they start deliberating and approving amendments to the Constitution in July. It's like telling the senators, "Congress is now convened into one and ready to amend the Constitution. It's up to you if you want to join or not," with the addendum, "either way, we have the votes to approve the amendments."

But why is this obssession and unwavering insistence despite the strong public outrage against charter change? How could these congressmen not heed the public sentiment and risk political suicide? It is obvious that these congressmen, a lot of them lawyers and veterans of Congress, know that without the Senate an act of the House alone cannot pass constitutional muster, and yet there is this sinister confidence to proceed. I would concede there can be a valid debate between joint and separate voting, but to say that a joint session - the vehicle to jumpstart the debate - of both Houses could be achieved by HR 1109 alone would be the height of stupidity that does not even merit the passing attention of the Supreme Court.

The majority in the House might have just stumbled and bared its ulterior motive in following and revealing an absurd theory. Domogan and Antonino's statements may have just revealed that all this fuzz about forcing a justiciable controversy is but a smokescreen for something bigger. The stupidity of their position with which they are so confident, coupled by their indifference to the public sentiment, are sending dangerous signals that something terrible is in the offing. Take note, this adamance - which is becoming exceedingly clear as deliberate - is stoking the fire of discontent and as I write this, preparations are underway for massive protests and rallies. The hubris is simply alarming. Nuff said.