By Carmela Fonbuena, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak
04/13/2009

Contrary to its claim that it is now focusing on the 2010 elections, the Arroyo administration can still convene a constituent assembly in four months, or starting August this year, to revise the Constitution.

This is the analysis of charter change critics who noted recent indications that Congress and the Supreme Court—the two institutions crucial to the process—can promptly act on time-bound issues.

“Despite Palace pronouncements that it favors the holding of elections in 2010, the scenarios for either postponing elections or having Arroyo stay in power are very much alive,” said Renato Reyes Jr., secretary-general of the militant group Bayan. His group launched protest rallies at the gates of the Lower House on Monday.

Some Malacañang allies are saying that with the approaching presidential polls, time is not enough time to push charter change. At the House of Representatives, Speaker Prospero Nograles is also sending mixed signals. (Read story: Nograles’ fate hangs on ‘Cha-cha’)

But Leah Navarro, convener of the reform-seeking Black and White Movement, is not convinced. “These statements are meant to lull us into disinterest. It is cheaper and surer to perpetuate this administration by pushing for constituent assembly than running in election,” she said

Administration lawmakers are pushing to amend the Constitution through a constituent assembly, or the convening of the House and the Senate to propose amendments to the fundamental law.

A three-fourth vote of Congress, or 197 votes, is needed to convene the constituent assembly.

Should the required votes be met, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak conservatively estimates that the new Palace strategy will need only four months to succeed.

This time frame includes one session week for the lower House to approve the Villafuerte Resolution, and four months for the Supreme Court to declare—with finality—that joint voting is constitutional.

Joint voting

In a yet-to-be-filed resolution, Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte, who heads the other party chaired by President Arroyo, Kampi, is seeking to convene a constituent assembly without the concurrence of the Senate, which is generally opposed to charter change.

The Villafuerte Resolution has been floated as early as last year, but it has apparently taken some time for its proponents to complete the required number of signatures. As of last count, the resolution supposedly has 185 signatures.

House Speaker Nograles earlier said he will file the Villafuerte Resolution himself.

The Villafuerte Resolution is proposing that the two chambers of Congress vote jointly to meet the three-fourth-vote requirement. Joint voting will allow the 238-member House of Representatives to complete the necessary 197 votes without the help of any senator.

Separate voting, meanwhile, will require at least 179 votes from the lower House and at least 18 votes from the Senate.

Only the Supreme Court can interpret how Congress should vote, however. As of April 2009, 13 of the 15 Supreme Court justices are appointees of President Arroyo. The current composition of the tribunal has made it prone to favoring the administration in its decisions.

Two days in Congress

Normally, a resolution takes weeks to move from one stage to another, but the passage in December 2008 of a resolution extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was instructive: It showed that it is possible to draft and vote on a measure in just one day.

Like charter change, CARP had been deliberated on for a number of Congresses. Instead of allowing CARP to expire at the end of 2008, the Senate and the House—on the last day of session last year—deliberated and voted to extend it for another six months to allow them more time to deliberate on the future of CARP.

In the case of the Villafuerte Resolution, it may take only two session days to pass it.

Once it is filed and referred to the committee on constitutional amendments, it may be taken up and approved by the committee the following day. The plenary may also vote on it during the session on the same day.

Should anybody question the congressional vote before the Supreme Court, it is likely that it will take up the issue at once. Last year, the high court decided—only after four months of deliberation—that the proposed Moro homeland accord was unconstitutional. One of the tribunal’s quickest decisions in recent history, it was handed down a few hours before the proposed agreement was to be signed in Kuala Lumpur.

Four months in Court

In the case of the Villafuerte Resolution, it may even take the Supreme Court less than four months to decide on the issue of joint voting, says constitutional law professor Edwin Lacierda, who is involved in anti-charter change efforts.

“I think it will be even lesser because it’s only a matter of interpretation. Your source materials are few. You have the records of the Constitutional Commission. There was really nothing there because it was silent on the issue precisely,” he said.

Lacierda said the justices may also choose to invite amicus curiae, or sources that can help enlighten the justices on the pending issue. Easy picks are the former members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution.

In a similar situation in 1973, the Supreme Court—also perceived then as a court controlled by President Ferdinand Marcos—took only two months to declare as valid the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. That Constitution was questioned on the ground that it was not properly ratified according to law.

With the blessing of the Supreme Court, the 1973 Constitution paved the way for the extension of the term of President Marcos, who was only ousted by a People Power revolt in 1986.

Pre-election year

More similarities with past experiences—especially recent ones—abound.

In late 2006, about a year before President Arroyo’s fallout with Lakas founder and co-chair Jose de Venecia Jr., the latter used his influence as Speaker to force the convening of a constituent assembly despite protests from senators.

Political observers said the 2006 efforts could have succeeded if not for the massive protests led by the Catholic church and the business and militant groups.

Back then, it was perceived that the administration was confident that its efforts to amend the charter would succeed because it put together a weak senatorial line for the following year’s elections. Observers interpreted it as a sign that the administration didn’t mind losing in a national election that might not take place anyway.

Critics now fear the familiar: The administration is yet to choose a presidential candidate for the 2010 elections since it is confident—again— that it can make charter change happen before the next polls.

President Arroyo’s critics believe that opening the Constitution to changes now will give her allies the opportunity to prolong her stay in power by making her head of state or prime minister in a changed form of government.

Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, her adoptive party that she now chairs, also tried but failed to amend the Constitution in 1997 to lift the term limit on President Fidel Ramos, the party’s chair emeritus. —with research assistance from Jesus Llanto

Office of Senator Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV
PRESS RELEASE
18 February 2009

respectively.

“Our police officers are entitled to the rights enjoyed by every other citizen and this includes the

The new provisions are aimed at improving the effectiveness, efficiency, morale and welfare of the PNP personnel, said Trillanes.

END

Banking crisis explained

Young Chuck moved to Texas and bought a donkey from a farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.

The next day he drove up and said,
‘Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died.’

Chuck replied, ‘Well, then just give me my money back.’
The farmer said, ‘Can’t do that. I went and spent it already.’
Chuck said, ‘OK, then, just bring me the dead donkey.’
The farmer asked, ‘What ya gonna do with him?
Chuck said, ‘I’m going to raffle him off.’
The farmer said ‘You can’t raffle off a deaed donkey!’
Chuck said, ‘Sure I can Watch me. I just won’t tell anybody he’s dead.’

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, ‘What happened with that dead donkey?’
Chuck said, ‘I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898.00.’
The farmer said, ‘Didn’t anyone complain?’

Chuck said, ‘Just the guy who won. So I gave him back his two dollars.’

Chuck now works for the BANK.