Anything under the sun
Con-Con versus Con-Ass, etc.
In our previous issues, we had discussed the distinctions between the presidential and the parliamentary systems as well as those between the unitary and the federal systems. Henceforth, we shall discuss other issues.
Con-Con versus Con-Ass - The advocates of the Constitutional Convention maintain that amendments to our Constitution must be drafted by delegates elected by the people - not by the Congressmen and Senators. In other words, the Constitution must be authored by the people.
At stake is the change of the system of our government to the parliamentary system which involve the legislators themselves. And to have the proposals drafted by them is open to self-serving proposals which shall benefit them - not the people.
On the other hand, the proponent of the Constituent Assembly point out that billions of pesos would be needed to convene the Con-Con and we are a poor country. This huge amount could instead be used for the needs of our people. Besides, a Con-Ass can work faster than the Con-Con.
2. Unicameral versus bicameral Parliament - In case the proposal for a parliamentary government prevails, this becomes a corollary issue. Supporters of the unicameral chamber reason that in parliamentary governments, usually the upper house is merely a ceremonial one like the House of Lords in England whose members belong to the nobility - earls, dukes, barons, etc.
Because in our country there is no nobility class, an upper house is not necessary. Besides, experience in our country shows that if the Senate becomes stubborn, the legislative mill slows down and few laws are passed.
On the other hand, the followers of the bicameral system maintains that there is a need to check an abusive Parliament. Besides, the Senate can be a training ground for our Presidents. Of the 14 Presidents that we have, only three were not previous senators - Magsaysay, Aquino and Ramos.
Age limits of judges and justices - The Constitutional Commission had recommmenced
that the retirement age in the judiciary be raised from 70 to 75.
Some observers say that in the United States, there is no such limit to the retirement age most probably because of the impression that the older the judges become, the sharper is their ability to judge. However, judges should not take this proposal as forcing them to serve up to 75 years. Because - they are still free to retire optionally before reaching that age.
***
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - The first set of Booklets (Books 1 to 5) of West Visayas Beatiful and Wonderful authored by this writer is now available at P500. Please call up Tel. No. 337-3045.