The Enigma of the 1971 Constitutional Convention

Title

Creator

Sinco, Vicente G.

Language

English

Year

1969

Subject

Philippines. Constitution

Constitutional conventions -- 1970 - 1971.

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

For an early election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the calling of the Convention itself.

Fulltext

■ For an early election of delegates to the Cons titutional Convention, as well as the calling of the Convention itself. THE ENIGMA OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The holding of the elec tion of delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1970 is a tardy attempt to adopt basic measures for solving problems that have plagued this country since the end of the last World War. It simply prolongs the deadening and oppressive conditions resulting from a structure of government illsuited to the national char acter and to the national conception of political po wer. It merely postpones needlessly the chances of ef fecting a peaceful political and social reform to relieve Filipino society of the evils of political corruption which conscientious officials and citizens condemn. The dan ger is that this delay for immediate constitutional refcym may produce in the meantime violent demands that could be destructive to law and order and justice. The fact is that already there are clear symptoms of social unrest and open omens of economic upheavals. The demonstrations now going on are manifestations not so much of student dissatisfac tion with educational insti tutions as they are citizen protest and angry expression against official irresponsibi lity, illegal accumulation of wealth, ruthless exploitation of natural resources, outra geous disregard of the proper claims of justice, and reck less indifference to educa tional competence and hu man values. There is absolutely no va lid reason for this intention al delay in the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention and in the or ganization of the Conven tion. It only means that the possibility of relief of poli tical evils the people now desire to see in their gov ernment will have to wait at least 7 or more years March 1969 33 from 1969. For with the election of our officials in November, 1969 under the present unsatisfactory system, the people are condemned to wait till 1974 or later before we could try the probability of a better system of admi nistration than what we have been tolerating under the existing Constitution during the last twenty years. What good does this de lay do to our country? The political and moral climate of the nation is at a very low ebb now. Why then is the country made to wait another 6 or more years be fore some reform may be tried to take the place of the unsatisfactory practices under some features of the present Constitution? There is absolutely no legal, moral, practical, and real justifica tion for putting so far off the election of delegates to the Constitutional Conven tion and the holding of that Convention. On the con trary, there is every reason to hold the election of dele gates as early as possible, preferably this very month of May, 1969. Let us remember how the former Philippine Legislature quickly and promptly pro vided for the election of de legates and the convening of the Constitutional Conven tion that adopted the pre sent Constitution. The time schedule then observed was as follows: In March, 1934, the U. S. Congress authorized the Philippine Legislature to call a Constitutional Conven tion. The Legislature imme diately called for the elec tion of delegates to the Constitutional Convention to be held on July 10, 1934. The Constitutional Conven tion was convened on July 30, 1934, only 20 days after the election. Despite some delay in the consideration of a few novel ideas, the basic draft of the Constitution was finished on October 20, 1934, although the formal signing for certain reasons, which could have been dispensed with, took place only in February, 1935. On March 23, 1935, President Roose velt approved it. Had not this action been made obli gatory by American dictation, the voters of this country would have ratified the Constitution on that date or even earlier. 34 Panorama The prompt action of the Philippine Legislature in 1934 puts in bold relief the sluggish, suspicious, and he sitant manner the action of our Congress in providing for the calling of a Consti tutional Convention in 1971. The law providing for the election of delegates was passed in the early days of 1967. The law provided that the election of delegates should be held in last days of 1970. In other words, al most 500 days would have to elapse before the election of convention delegates could be held. Then the Consti tutional Convention itself will not be held until 1971 or the year following the election. Recently another proposal would still postpone further the date of the elec tion and the Convention. This is like giving hay to a horse already in articulo mortis. Such uncalled for retarda tion of a remedy, which should be made immediately available, looks like a clever but unscrupulous device to enable a number of present officials to remain in power for another five or more years, thus forestalling the employment of a needed re medy. The need for effecting a constitutional reform concur rently with the social change calling for it has been de clared by the Supreme Court of the United States as a wise principle; and so amendment proposals to the American Federal Constitu tion when left unacted for some time become inopera tive and useless. Hence, constitutional changes should take place at the time the urgent need for them arises. Our Congress in the present instance has clearly disre garded this salutary principle without any strong reason at all. Its ulterior motive, how ever, appears to some ob servers as arising from the apprehension of losing the official prestige and finan cial advantages derived from their public positions which may be eliminated or ad versely affected by expected constitutional amendments. One is tempted to ask: Is the present Filipino, after all, incapable and unworthy of the privilege and respon sibility of political indepen dence? One wonders whether this is not what a famed au Majrch 1969 thority calls a case of cons titutional immorality. Why not hold the election of delegates on June 1 and call the Convention on July 1? The ratification may then be held in October, 1969. The people have long been ready and willing to see changes without any de lay. Let it be borne in mind that Congress had long ago began discussing the neces sity of changing the Consti tution way back in 1956 when President Carlos P. Garcia was in Malacanang. Political sovereignty resides in the people. Its exercise is delegated to the govern ment, specially Congress, which is given the unusual power to propose changes to the Constitution according to two distinct methods. By resorting to protracted delays in applying the method it has chosen for revising the Constitution, Congress prac tically deprives the people of their basic and original au thority. As the saying goes: Justice delayed is justice de nied. To prevent the reptition of the abuse of this dele gated power, it is advisable that the people withdraw it completely from Congress and adopt a more trustwor thy method when they ap prove a revised Constitution. There is sense and wisdom in the statement expressed by George Gallup in his book The Miracle Ahead which says: "The goals of a democratic society change little, except over long pe riods of time but the met hods adopted for achieving these goals must be altered as new conditions arise. This is the reason why practices, forms, and systems — machinery of government — must be scrutinized contin uously and why change is so vital to the health of de mocracy.” — By V. G. Sinco, former U.P. President 36 Panorama

Media