The movement toward Charter change refuses to die in the hearts of many current power holders. The masses, however, find the motivation of Charter change advocates to be self-serving. Hence the opponents of Charter change are untiring in their campaign to frustrate the ambition of many members of the House. What triggered the current intensified campaign against Charter change was the midnight move last June 2 to convene Congress as a constituent assembly.

The campaign against Charter change now is projected and is seen as a campaign to dismantle HR 1109. In one sense, however, targeting HR 1109 is a pointless exercise. With or without it, Congress can already initiate changes because the Constitution has already made Congress a constituent assembly. By saying that “Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution may be proposed by Congress,” the Constitution has already made Congress a constituent assembly long before HR 1109.

In another and more accurate sense, however, the campaign against HR 1109 is really a campaign against allowing the current crop of members of the House of Representatives to take the lead or even to monopolize the task of effecting constitutional change. In this sense I strongly support the campaign.

Whether we like it or not, constitutional change is bound to happen. It will not happen before the 2010 elections. There simply is no more time for that. But sometime after the 2010 elections it is bound to happen. How should it happen?

Constitutional change can be either amendment or revision. An amendment is a minor change in the Constitution that does not affect the fundamental structure of the system or affects only one or two provisions of the existing Constitution. A revision, however, involves a broader examination of the total document with a view to changing its basic structure or changing some of its philosophical underpinnings. From the tenor of current discussions it is clear to me that what is being envisioned is a revision—an examination of the unitary presidential system, of bicameralism, of economic nationalism, etc. If we are to embark on this enterprise, what is needed is not speed (as the current crop of House members seems to want it) but careful deliberation in an atmosphere of mutual respect. If we have to face it, one crucial question to ask is: How should changes be made?

Under our current system, changes can be achieved through initiative and referendum, or through Congress as a constituent assembly, or through a constitutional convention. The method of initiative and referendum, however, is out. This novel method is allowed by the Constitution only for amendments and not for revision. Thus we are left with a choice between Congress as a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention.

Theoretically both Congress as a constituent assembly and a constitutional convention have the authority to formulate and propose both minor and major changes. But there are important differences between the two which must be considered when deciding which method to choose. In terms of cost, using a constituent assembly is less expensive than resorting to a constitutional convention. Supporting a constitutional convention would be equivalent to supporting a second and perhaps larger legislative body. However, Congress, aside from not having been elected for the purpose of revising the Constitution, consists of people who currently hold political power and are not likely to be inclined to make changes that can diminish their power.

A constitutional convention, on the other hand, consists of members chosen by the sovereign people precisely for the purpose of reviewing the existing constitution. The constitutional convention law which will prescribe the manner of electing or appointing the delegates and the qualifications needed for membership can set parameters which can assure, to the extent humanly possible, that the delegates will act with wisdom, independence and unselfish concern for the welfare of the nation. Indeed, delegates might already harbor in their hearts the ambition to hold office under the new constitution, but their relation to public office is more remote than what members of Congress already have.

Considering these differences between Congress as a constituent assembly and a constitutional convention, I would suggest that if the intent is a radical revision in the constitutional structure (as I am sure it is), such as a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government, the task of evaluating or formulating the details of such a change should be entrusted to a constitutional convention. Minor changes, and even important changes but which do not involve a radical change in the structure of government, can be sought through Congress as a constituent assembly. But this latter kind of changes do not have to be done in one fell swoop. They can be attended to gradually over the years.

Should we then embark on a constitutional convention?

We must face the reality that a large segment of the population, rightly or wrongly, has been conditioned to expect constitutional reform soon. This cannot be ignored. It can, however, be dealt with through the constitutional provision which authorizes Congress to present the question to the people themselves in a plebiscite for the purpose. The Constitution says: “The Congress may ... by a majority vote, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a [constitutional] convention.” This question can be proposed to the electorate in the May 2010 elections.