DILG prefers amending 1987 Constitution through con-ass

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) on Wednesday said amending the restrictive provisions of the 1987 Constitution should be done through a constituent assembly.

"The experience of older democracies in the world is that legislative action through a Constituent assembly of both houses of the legislature proved to be the most expeditious manner to effect changes in the Constitution," DILG Undersecretary Jonathan Malaya said during the hearing of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws.

"In practice all over the world, Constitutional Conventions are not meant for amendments but are convened by Congress for the purpose of drafting an entirely new Constitution," he added.

In a constituent assembly, members of Congress are convened to amend the Constitution. In a constitutional convention or con-con, those who will amend the Charter will be elected by the people.

Malaya said lifting the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution would be a significant factor in revving up the country's economy and sustaining its recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The DILG also believes that the House of Representatives and Senate should vote separately though convening as a con-ass.

"We believe this is the case because the bicameral nature of Congress makes separate voting logical, prudent, and reasonable," Malaya said.

Further, the DILG proposes that the referendum for the proposed Charter amendments be done simultaneously with the 2022 elections. The same has been suggested by Senate President Vicente Sotto III.

While saying this is not the right time to touch the 1987 Constitution, former Supreme Court Justice Vicente Mendoza said both houses of Congress should meet in a joint session should they decide to convene as a con-ass.

"They should because when they meet as a Constituent Assembly, they're not meeting to legislate as Congress. As the SC pointed out, the senators and the congressmen act not as senators and congressmen but members of an assembly," Mendoza said.

Former Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna also opined that there is no need to call for a con-con if only economic provisions will be amended.

"It can be done very simply by resolutions of both houses, three-fourths vote by Lower House, three-fourths vote by [Senate] and then present it in a plebiscite," he said.

Azcuna agreed with Mendoza that members of the two houses of Congress should jointly meet in the deliberation of the proposed amendments.

"The members of the Senate and House should hear each other but vote separately," he said.

Despite questions on its timing, the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments resumed deliberations on so-called economic Charter change earlier this month.

Advocates are proposing to insert the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to the constitutional provisions on national patrimony and economy; education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports; and on general provisions to give Congress flexibility to enact laws that would free up the economy to foreign investors. —KBK, GMA News