Are you in favor of charter change?

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through people’s initiative. My first question is does the issue constitute an amendment or revision of the constitution? Likewise, what part of the constitution needs amendment or revision? A shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. My second question is does our constitution need to adjust for change? Does it justifiable by new conditions and circumstances? I believe it is not yet time to change. Our Constitution today is not the impediment spur to progress but the people behind who suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation for change. If change bound to happen due to capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or infatuations of the people, I have a preference to implement the third mode of changing the constitution, which is through people’s initiative. Our legislature has ample cavalcade record of corrupt practices and no longer candid to his people. If legislatures propose the change, their primary concern is there vested individual interest not the public in general. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiatives upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. Thus, people author and sign the entire proposal embodied in the petition. The proposed amendment is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such proposal in a petition. The full text of the proposed amendment may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendment before signing. Moreover, an initiatives signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed. The people must be afforded opportunity to mull over the original provision, which is subject for amendment, and compare them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free from possible insidious influence. There must be a fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection. An initiative that gather signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendment is most likely a deception and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. Proposal should be voted upon at a time when the interest in them is still rife and the electorate is still knowledgeable on the pros and cons of the issues submitted to them. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s fundamental law cannot be hidden from the people to those selfish, greedy power individual.

Word count: 529