The Constituent Assembly strategy (if you can call it that) has been scrapped finally. If I understand it properly, it’s the plan of the lower house to convene both the House of Representatives and the Senate into one super-legislative body and vote on the issue of charter change.
Isn’t that stupid? I mean seriously, don’t they understand why the present system have two chambers to begin with? Although you can’t always completely rely on the Senate, one of their main duties is to check and guard what the lower legislative body is doing. Kaya nga sila mga senador eh. The House of Representatives cannot just “will” upon itself such a ruling and simply drag Senate body into their plans. A senator (I forget who) pointed out that the sheer number of the other body would render them insignificant. And it wasn’t selfish argument, but it was a valid point I think. It was to remind others the idea of check-and-balance within the legislative branch, especially if it involves changing/rewording/revising the fundamental code of the land.
But then I realized that perhaps the Con-Ass was meant to fail.
Why? In order to make the idea of Con-Con (or Constitutional Convention) more appealing I think. In psychology, the strategy can be referred to as reverse psychology. All this was meant to make Con-Ass look really stupid and crazy, and make Con-Con look more rational and appealing to everyone.
Objectively, Con-Con is a better alternative. Yes, the people do get to decide who’s in and who’s out so-to-speak. But do we have trust-worthy candidates? Do we have the people who will put the best interest of our country above anything else? Again, we need to go back to idea why we need to change the constitution and at least learn what changes are being proposed.
Because in the end, it doesn’t really matter who gets to participate in the Constitutional Convention, if the cost of political progress and economic growth mean sacrificing our national identity, security, and independence.