Saving the peace
To save the peace process from formidable constitutional infirmities, Congress can either (1) delete the objectionable parts from the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) or (2) amend the Constitution. The first is the simpler alternative which the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) may continue discussing. Meanwhile, as promised last Sunday, I will explain the second and how it can be reasonably speeded up.
Congressional functions. Congress has two major functions: lawmaking and constitution-amending. The Constitution prescribes in detail the manner of making laws. Briefly, bills or proposed laws undergo three readings in each house. Extensive debates are held during the second reading. Once approved by a majority vote of each house, voting separately, they are sent to the President for approval.
On the other hand, Congress may amend or revise the Charter “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.” While the Constitution is silent, I believe that the two houses should vote separately, not jointly. Otherwise, the 24 senators would be snowed down by the congressmen numbering over 250.
Once approved by three-fourths vote, the proposed amendments shall be ratified in a national plebiscite “which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.” Unlike legislative bills, constitutional amendments do not need presidential approval.
Using its lawmaking function, Congress shall pass and the President shall approve the BBL together with the constitutionally-infirm portions, with the proviso that the law shall be effective only after the Constitution is amended. Unless the funds are already provided for in the national budget, Congress must also appropriate money for the national plebiscite.
Convening separately as a constituent assembly, each house shall then take up the amendments. Should the necessary vote be obtained and the Comelec certification secured, the amendments would be submitted for ratification by the people.
Speeding up approval. Note that while the Constitution prescribes a set procedure for lawmaking, it did not provide any for Charter amendments. So, I believe that Congress can hasten the process by no longer subjecting the proposed amendments to three readings and by cutting the debates to a minimum. After all, the legislators would have adequately discussed the issues in the lawmaking stage.
The remaining difficult problem would be the required “three-fourths vote.” I would urge the members of Congress to vote for the amendments if only to give our people a chance to debate and to vote on the monumental issue of peace. Even if they may not agree with the proposed amendments, they may still vote affirmatively with the reservation that, during the national debate on the plebiscite, they could take any position on any of the proposed amendments.
Otherwise, those who adamantly refuse to subject the amendments to a national debate and plebiscite would have to bear the sole responsibility for the defeat of the peace process and for the renewed fighting, mass killing and carnage that would ensue.
I suggest that the amendments not just cover the MILF peace process but also define in generic terms the extent of congressional authority to grant, by law, the delicate issues of sovereignty, territory, or even self-determination.
Freedom to choose. I also think that the amendments should not be lumped in one line of “Yes” or “No” for the entire package. Rather, they should be chopped into separate provisions which our people could ratify or reject one by one. Only those voted by the majority would be deemed included in the BBL once it becomes effective. If our people reject all the provisions, then the BBL would never take effect.
I realize that the subject of peace with rebels presents difficult choices and solutions. Other countries have been impoverished and ravaged by their wrong choices and solutions. Indeed, countries have been partitioned, like Yugoslavia and Sudan, with differing end results.
Sometimes, excision of entire territories and tribes have happened, like when Singapore, to the chagrin of a teary Lee Kuan Yew, was forcefully excised from the newly-organized Federation of Malaysia, an excision that later proved to be beneficial to both countries.
Some First World federated states have given their member-states the option of full self-determination. Recent examples include the referendum to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom and Quebec from Canada. Fortunately for them, the Scots and the Quebecois voted to
remain with their mother countries.
Many reasons (different history, culture, ethnicity, poverty, religion, wanton neglect, etc.) there are why rebels in Mindanao (or elsewhere) want to have partial, if not complete, independence. Like couples and families who constantly fight and can no longer live together in harmony, it is sometimes for their mutual benefit that they separate, in fact or in law.
This is the challenge that nations and peoples must face. At times, radical solutions may seem outrageous, if not utterly unacceptable. But as many nations have discovered, only time can really tell who and what is right for a country.
Meanwhile, I think it is best to give our people the full freedom to choose. In this way, the results of the national plebiscite would bind not just our current but also all future presidents to the pursuit of peace.
* * *
Comments to [email protected]
