The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Monday thumbed down moves to change the Constitution through a Constituent Assembly, citing that it would only extend the terms of politicians who want to “perpetuate themselves in power.”
 
CBCP President Angel Lagdameo reiterated the previous stand of the CBCP for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) after the 2010 elections.

“Understanding the gravity of Charter Change and its perceived consequences, the CBCP has expressed its negative judgment on the proposal of the House of Representatives to convert itself into a Constituent Assembly,” said Lagdameo in a statement.

The CBCP president also pointed out that more important than the change in form of government is a change among those who are in power.
 
“More than change the form of our government, there are those who are guilty of graft and corruption who need to change or be changed,” he said.

Lagdameo, who joined four other Catholic Church leaders last October in calling for a drastic change in government, stressed that the country needs leaders who can govern with honesty and integrity.

“What our country more urgently needs is to look for and elect people who will govern us with honesty above all, with integrity, truthfulness, justice and accountability,” he said.

It was earlier reported that a resolution calling on the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene into a Constituent Assembly has been quietly going around the House of Representatives for signatures.

Several resolutions calling for charter change are pending in the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, but a new resolution has been circulated by allies of the President in the House.

The target number of signatures is three-fourths of the combined total of the members of the House, which is 238, and the Senate, which is 24, but minus former Senator Alfredo Lim who is now Manila mayor.

The Constitution provides that a three-fourths vote is necessary for both Houses to convene as a constituent assembly and to amend the Constitution. The amendments have to be approved in a plebiscite.

But what is vague in the 1987 Constitution is whether both houses should vote separately or jointly.

Most constitutionalists have said the vote should be done separately since all bills and other legislative measures, such as the budget, are decided upon by both houses separately.