Con-con must wait until DPWH scandal is resolved

Recent maneuvers to convene a constitutional convention (Con-con) have once again ignited the contentious national debate on Charter Change (Cha-cha). While proponents, including key allies of the administration, frame it as a necessary step for economic liberalization, this push arrives at a moment that is not just inopportune but deeply suspect. It threatens to divert the nation’s attention and political will from a more immediate and profound crisis: the massive corruption scandal engulfing the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Before we contemplate rewriting our fundamental law, we must demonstrate the political will to uphold the laws we already have.

At the heart of the current Cha-cha push lies a fundamental procedural manipulation: the misinterpretation of “voting jointly.” The 1987 Constitution is ambiguous on whether Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, should vote as one body or as separate chambers. House leaders argue for a joint vote, which would effectively drown out the Senate’s 24 votes within the 316-member House. This is not a minor technicality but a direct assault on the bicameral principle and the Senate’s role as a necessary check. The Senate, historically a skeptical bulwark against self-serving Cha-cha attempts, is right to resist this coercive tactic. Attempting to strong-arm such a foundational process undermines its legitimacy from the outset.

The timing of this aggressive push is precisely what makes it so alarming. It coincides with an unfolding Senate blue ribbon committee investigation into the DPWH flood control projects scandal, a controversy of staggering scale. The allegations are not of minor inefficiencies but of systemic graft: “ghost projects” receiving billions, substandard constructions that crumble, and a small circle of favored contractors cornering an estimated P100 billion in projects. This is not merely a breach of public trust; it represents a gross and flagrant violation of constitutional principles mandating honesty, integrity, and equitable use of public funds.

To pivot from this urgent crisis to an abstract debate on economic provisions is a profound misplacement of national priorities. The administration reports implementing over 5,500 flood control projects, yet senators describe a program marred by kickbacks so high they leave only 30 to 40 percent of funds for actual construction. When a P100-million floodwall in Lucena collapses into a river, the question is not whether we need foreign investors, but why our own institutions cannot deliver basic, competent infrastructure. The “elephant in the room” is not an outdated constitutional clause on foreign equity; it is the brazen plunder occurring within a key executive department.

This diversionary tactic is rooted in a long and painful history. Public distrust of Cha-cha is exceptionally high, with a recent survey showing 88 percent of Filipinos opposed to the current efforts. This skepticism is earned. Past attempts have repeatedly been seen as Trojan horses for political maneuvering, most infamously when the 1973 Constitution was used to cement a dictatorship. The current advocacy, led by the ascendant political dynasty, risks being perceived as another self-serving project to consolidate power, using “economic reform” as a flimsy decoy.

Therefore, the path forward is clear and nonnegotiable.

First, we must see the ongoing Senate probe through to its just conclusion. The Senate must be supported, not sidelined, in its constitutional duty to investigate. The public demands and deserves a full accounting, the prosecution of all guilty parties, and the recovery of stolen public money. This is the “massive incarceration roll call” that requires our undivided attention.

Second, we must reject any Cha-cha process born of coercion or bad faith. The “joint voting” issue must be resolved by the Supreme Court or through sober, principled negotiation—not by political brute force. A legitimate constitutional moment requires a legitimate process.

Third, we must prioritize faithful execution over perpetual revision. The 1987 Constitution already contains robust mandates for social justice, an independent economy, and integrity in public service. Our failure lies not in the charter’s text but in our consistent failure to implement its spirit. We must learn to follow our existing laws before we deem them inadequate.

A nation that cannot stop the theft of funds for its own flood control should not be distracted by promises of foreign capital. A political system that seeks to bypass its own checks and balances to amend the supreme law is declaring itself unfit for the task. Let us first drain the swamp of corruption in plain sight.

Only then, with cleaner hands and clearer purpose, can we earn the right to debate the future of our Constitution.

—————–

James D. Lansang is a small-town private law practitioner and is semi-retired after well over 60 years of practice.