james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 17 June 2009 Issue (Page E-3)

---

We’ve seen some very strange things happen in this country, especially during the years of this administration.

We heard the President promise during her first term that she would not run for a second. Shortly after, we heard her voice on wiretapped telephone lines telling an election official to manipulate some votes in her favor. She is still the President now.

We watched as she declared a state of national emergency, and granted herself the power to take over privately-run public utilities, in response to the growing clamor for her resignation. We trembled in fear as it brought us back to another dark period in our history which began in the exact same way.

We witnessed as the First Gentleman, along with other public officials implicated themselves in a multibillion-dollar scandal with taxpayers’ money. We rallied behind the whistleblower who risked both life and reputation to bring the criminals to justice. We also looked on helplessly as they got away with it.

What’s terrifying is that this is the way it has always been.

Our country is no stranger to deception and betrayal. Our history is marred by strange events which have happened despite insurmountable obstacles, sometimes defying even logical possibility. The 1986 People Power Revolution is a very good example, but it is the only positive example I can think of. Most are negative.

Our independence from Spain we owe not only to the sacrifices made by our ancestors, but also to the invaluable help offered to us by the Americans. Unfortunately, by some strange oversight we did not realize that while we were busy “fighting for our freedom” in the streets, the Americans were negotiating with the Spaniards for the sale of our country in the halls of Malacanang Palace. Yet we greet each other “Happy Independence Day!” when history tells us it’s really more like a horrible not-joke: “Happy Independence Day…NAAAT!!”

And it’s not just our colonizers who have practiced deception on our people. History tells us that we have a penchant for deceiving our fellow countrymen if it serves to advance our personal interests. This was certainly the case when Emilio Aguinaldo had Andres Bonifacio executed, and when Antonio Luna was assassinated. We always eliminate the ones we love—wasn’t this the case when Joe de Venecia, the favored one, was ousted from the Speakership by the minions of the one who favored him?

So with history, both recent and ancient, telling us that this is the way it has always happened, I find it hard to believe that the Con-Ass issue would be any different, despite the fact that both laws and logic tell me that it is probably otherwise.

True, many experts say that the Supreme Court will probably rule against the resolution because the time is not yet ripe for Charter Change. But who is to say that is for certain? Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, after all. What goes on behind these appointments is something we are not privy to. Not to mention that it was also the Supreme Court who legitimized the 1973 Constitution which was ratified by Marcos’ so-called “citizen’s assemblies.”

There is also that unknown variable, the Lozano complaint. Reason will tell us that the Supreme Court should dismiss his complaint because no legal ruling has happened yet. Yet if the courts consider his complaint, it could be a sign of danger.

Lozano has always proclaimed himself to be part of the opposition, but ironically, his moves have always favored the President politically. He has unwittingly(?) saved the President twice from impeachment due to his groundless complaints. He could save the President yet again—this time from an election.

Similarly, while the Senate seems impenetrable, there is no telling whether they can hold their ground. Many of the President’s most outspoken critics have been silent or have been silenced by scandals coming in their way. And if the Supreme Court rules in Con-Ass’s favor, it might serve as enough of an imperative for the more moderate senators to push for it.

Finally, we can always vote against Con-Ass in a plebiscite—but starting this year, elections are to be automated, and it is easy to program a “No” into a “Yes”.

But in the end, the most unsettling thing is the confidence of the congressmen. Our brightest minds have called their gamble and have called it stupid. But no one has the audacity to gamble on something that they know will certainly fail. And those who do usually have aces under their sleeve.

I think we should be scared of Con-Ass because stranger things have happened in this country.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 10 June 2009 Issue (Page E-4)

---

Reason tells me that there is no cause to panic about the Con-Ass resolution passed by the House of Representatives just over a week ago. Many of our best and brightest legal and political minds have said the same thing, despite the distateful manner in which the procedure was handled, and the widespread public outcry that accompanied it. My head agrees with theirs.

There is simply no way that the Lower House, even if supported by the President, can outmatch the combined powers of the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the People. The very nature of our government, and the laws that govern it, already ensures this. GMA is still vying for the power to change the law; she has not changed it yet.

Our constitution will tell us that a Con-Ass, or the amendment of the constitution through our senators and congressmen, is only possible if three-fourths of the entire legislative branch, or ‘Congress’, vote to approve it. Only then is it possible for both the Lower House and the Senate to meet as a single body—a Constituent Assembly—to make changes to the constitution.

But there are three formidable lines of defense that the Administration must overcome in order for the Con-Ass to be successful.

The first wall is the approval of the resolution, manned by the Supreme Court.

There are two conflicting ways to interpret the “three-fourths of Congress” clause. Simply speaking, our congressmen choose to play it by numbers, arguing that the statement should be taken as it was written. On the other hand, our senators contend that both Lower House and Senate should achieve a three-fourths vote separately. This is consistent with the way the writers of our constitution intended our Congress to be, which is bicameral: a precise way of saying both houses have an equal say.

Since our congressmen pretty much forced the resolution despite objections from the Senate, it is the Supreme Court who will decide whether their interpretation is valid. To derail the Con-Ass, the Supreme Court can rule against it, which is what some legal experts say they will do. Or they can delay their ruling until after the elections—in other words, not rule at all.

But even if the courts rule in the congressmens’ favor, they’ll have a second wall to siege: the Senate.

And the Senate is impenetrable. They have already passed a resolution opposing the Con-Ass initiative. Without the Senate’s approval, no amendments to the constitution can be passed.

Fr. Bernas, SJ, a key member of that fateful committee responsible for our current constitution, put it very cleverly: “Congress is already a constituent assembly. So that even if today they want to propose amendments, they can propose it now, pero dapat ipasa sa Senado…Congress consists of two Houses. The House cannot say ‘we are Congress’ because Congress is the House and the Senate.”

In so many words, he was saying that the amendments they propose will have to undergo the same double examination that bills and laws currently go through. This is only logical, since constitutional provisions are more far-reaching than ordinary legislation. Fr. Bernas, then, is confirming one very important fact: legally, it is impossible for the Lower House to override the Senate.

But it is impossible even practically speaking. Assuming a Con-Ass convenes, both houses will still have to agree on a budget for a plebiscite—a popular vote. But there is no money for a plebiscite, and Senate can always disapprove of the budget.

Yet if all obstacles are still steamrolled in the name of power, there is still the final wall: the people.

The amended constitution can only pass if majority of the voting population ratifies it via a plebiscite. With the fate of our constitution in our hands, I have a feeling that we won’t.

For the only way they can get that far is to commit crimes of epic proportions, disregarding both laws and practical constraints. Last time I checked, we didn’t vote for people who committed crime, especially when crime was committed in our presence.

Our reaction to their ‘useless’ resolution should be enough of an indication.

No matter which way I look at it, there seems to be no reason to panic about the Con-Ass resolution. There is simply no way that an army of fat dwarven congressmen, led by their mole-faced hobbit queen, can scale the high walls of the people, the Senate, and the judiciary. My mind tells me that there is no reason to fear.

But my intuition tells me something different.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 17 December 2008 Issue (Page G-2)

---

At the Ayala Avenue-Paseo de Roxas junction in Makati last Friday afternoon, the multi-sectoral rally against Charter Change proved at least two things.

First, that rallies still work– sort of. During the days that followed, the Senate voted to junk the Constitutional Assembly, and House Speaker Prospero Nograles declared a ‘ceasefire’ on moves to amend the Constitution.

Second, it proved that people still cared. Well, some people, at least. The multi-sectoral rally did live up to its name. It drew a wide spectrum of protesters, from priests to politicans, capitalists to conservatives, students to street people. It was, on a miniature scale, almost ideally representative. Despite the disillusionment that pervades society when it comes to issues of politics, it is encouraging to know that some people still care about whether our government is doing the right thing.

It didn’t occur to me that it happened last Friday, though, until I came home that same night, when I came home to the sound of my parents watching TV Patrol in the living room, and in my head I blurted out, “Oh, that was today?” I guess I had been too preoccupied with my academic work the past week to be able to keep abreast with national news. I had the television turned off on most nights.

But the truth is, I consciously avoid following news on national politics whenever I can help it, which unfortunately isn’t very often because there is only one place at home to study in, and that place is where my parents watch the evening and midnight news, whichever is on by the time they arrive. Part of me is disenchanted whenever I hear talk on political squabbles or scandals or Charter Change, because it seems to me that nothing positive ever happens. But alas, due to ANC being on all the time, I am regrettably quite informed, and very disillusioned.

I used to be one of those young people who actively kept aware, though. I used to stay up to watch congressional sessions and impeachment votings, even if the results were mostly in favor of the Administration. But besides that, I used to make myself heard: I aired out my views to classmates and friends, whether or not they gave a damn, I blogged my positions, and I tried to join demonstrations whenever it was within my means to do so.

Nowadays I just sit around and watch re-runs of old sitcoms. I figure my voice won’t matter in the end. This issue proves my point.

It isn’t so much that amending the Constitution is such a horrible thing to do, it’s that they’re amending it for all the wrong reasons.

For one thing, this isn’t the first time that the Administration has brought it up. In fact, if my memory serves, they bring it up at least once every year. Not only that, they’re intent on making it happen before election time arrives, before her term expires. It’s been shot down again, but I’m wiling to bet a million bucks that it will come back to life by the time next year rolls around. This issue is turning out to be immortal.

For another, the method which they advocate to do it with, a constituent assembly, seems suspect. Loosely speaking, it will bring both the Senate (24 senators), and the House of Representatives (250 congressmen), the two houses of Congress, together in a meeting to vote on charter change. If three-fourths of all the members (198 votes) vote in favor of it, then amendments can be made to the Constitution. It would be fairly easy to predict how this one will go.

Somehow, I find it hard to convince myself that this little charade is for anything else than to keep some people in power.

Of course, it’s not like my voice will matter. My congressmen haven’t asked me whether I would be in favor of Cha-Cha, and I doubt they’ve asked anyone else who isn’t in government. I’ll have to wait until 2010– if we ever get there.

It’s thoughts like these that make me wish I had switched to another channel.