House intent on railroading cha-cha

It still is a no-go for the Senate, despite Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s written offer for both congressional chambers to vote separately on charter change (cha-cha) though a constituent assembly (con-ass).

In Resolution 2056, Arroyo and her four colleagues were quoted as saying: “There is an urgent need for the House of Representatives and the Senate to convene as a constituent assembly to consider proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution.”

In arguing for separate voting, senators said joint voting would render them irrelevant as House members could easily outvote them on any proposed constitutional amendment.

At the same time, Arroyo stopped the Veloso committee from drafting its own version of a new constitution, calling it a waste of time.

Arroyo also spoke to some former senators to help convince the present Senate to go along with the House on separate voting.

However, suspicion apparently still lurks in the minds of many senators, given the little time left before the election fever hits a higher temperature, as well as some senators’ conviction that nothing will really be resolved despite the resolution on separate voting to enable the House of Representatives and the Senate to convene as a con-ass that does not seem to be palatable to some senators.

The Arroyo resolution approving separate voting may not mean anything at all. Questions persist: Even if the House and the Senate go into separate voting, how will the total vote count be reached? Will the Senate vote be considered separate and equal to the House vote? Can a Senate vote junking cha-cha enough to kill the House vote?

This is important since there still won’t be the formation of a con-ass because even if the House gets the constitutionally required number to usher in a con-ass, the Senate can dump it.

However, should the Senate fail to get the required percentage vote the present Charter has imposed, what this means is that there can’t be a con-ass since the Senate lost the vote.

Chances, however, are that separate voting may prove to be a trap for the Senate. Once the votes from a con-ass are in, what is the guarantee that the total votes from the Senate and the House will be counted as one congressional total vote, which means that the con-ass goes ahead, even if the Senate votes against con-ass?

There also seems to be a move from the Speaker to simply vote on the draft charter on federal-parliamentary system of government as she turned down the proposal of a former Court of Appeals justice-turned-congressman to draft the House version of a new Constitution.

As mentioned earlier, Arroyo quickly stopped Rep. Veloso’s committee from drafting its own version of a new constitution.

“It’s a waste of time. That should be done by the assembly,” Arroyo told committee members during yesterday’s meeting of the panel that she attended.

What it looks like, given Arroyo’s dismissal to dump a House proposal to draft its version of a new constitution is that the House, under Speaker Arroyo, along with her majority, will be railroading the draft charter written by Rody’s Consultative Committee (ConCom) for a quick approval.

Coming up with a new Constitution should never be rushed and railroaded since this is being unfair to the people.

At most, what is needed are arguments pro and con on the shift to federalism as the majority of the electorate are still unaware and worse are not familiar at all with the parliamentary system or even the federal system.

The point is, if the House wants to rush the approval of the Federal-parliamentary system draft of the ConCom, one can’t blame the senators for being suspicious over the separate voting offer from Arroyo.

Imagine a House leader trashing the idea of the House, which she leads, drafting its own draft charter and instead just vote on the Rody-commissioned body that drafted the charter and the House is to vote on this, just like that?

At least four senators are reportedly still wary on the possibility of the Senate being irrelevant under such setup.

One senator raised the time constraint, the probability of the Senate vote being irrelevant and a no election scenario that generate mistrust.

Another senator said the House resolution is no assurance since this could be challenged by somebody, or even a political group or groups before the Supreme Court which would delay this move for some time.

The truth is, this country and its people can’t afford to have a federal system. Such a set-up will have the federal and state governments bleeding the taxpayers dry.