Does the Philippine Constitution Really Need Changing?
/
The opening of the 19th session of Congress last July, 2022 (Photo by Gabriel Lalu/Inquirer.net)
Since the House committee adopted a resolution on February 20 calling for a constitutional convention, lawmakers have been diligently holding public consultations across the country on the possibility of amending or revising the country's fundamental law.
However, the position of President Marcos on the issue of Charter puzzles me. He blatantly said that Charter change is not a "priority" for his administration. Did he really mean to put the issue on the back burner despite the on-going efforts of Congress to pave the way for rewriting the Constitution? Admittedly, I cannot help but be skeptical about it since he would be the principal benefactor of Charter reform.
President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. during his first State of the Nation Address (Photo by Jam Sta. Rosa/AFP)
I surmise that Marcos Jr.’s statements could be a trick to distance himself from the Charter change issue in order to dispel any suspicion that he may be its architect, especially now that his own cousin, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, is the House Speaker of Congress and a key proponent of Charter Change. Of course, everything is possible in politics.
The shadow of Martial Law?
The proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution has been one of the most divisive issues in Philippine history since the end of President Corazon Aquino’s presidency. It has always been associated with our leaders' attempts to perpetuate their power. Successive administrations have been accused of using Charter change as a "pretext" for pursuing their political agenda—the removal of term limits.
So, it comes as no surprise why many Filipinos are wary of supporting the move to change the Charter. According to Dante Gatmaytan, professor of law at the University of the Philippines, the skepticism is due to the bad experience they had during the Marcos era. The 20-year rule of President Marcos Sr. taught us a lesson about the folly of martial law and how he used the 1973 Constitution to justify his authoritarianism.
According to a 2018 Pulse Asia survey, 64 percent of Filipinos didn’t want Charter change, and the 2022 survey revealed that Charter change was not on the list of Filipinos’ "most urgent national concerns.
As retired Supreme Court (SC) Justice Vicente Mendoza said,
"The reason the many attempts of Congress or groups to change the 1987 Constitution failed is not by reason of intrinsic merit." It is because the attempts were viewed as nothing but veiled attempts to extend the term of office of the president. "That is the simple reason."
Cha cha Is No Panacea
However, despite all the failed attempts, Congress, particularly the Lower House, still seeks to change the country’s 36-year-old Constitution ostensibly to liberalize restrictive economic provisions seen as discouraging to foreign investors. It is argued that the fundamental law needs to fit the 21st century so the country may achieve economic progress.
What do experts, legal luminaries and economists think about this rationale?
The leading figures supporting Charter change are Adolf Azcuna, Ernesto Pernia, Gerardo Sicat and Raul Fabella, among others. They argue that easing restrictive economic provisions will lead to more capital investments in the country and create more job opportunities for the Filipinos.
On the other side of the spectrum are individuals who have made names for themselves in the fields of economics and constitutional law; namely, Solita Collas-Monsod, Jose Enrique Africa, Aries Arugay, Hilario Davide Jr. and Christian Monsod. They dismiss the claim that Charter change is necessary to achieve economic progress. They contend that liberalizing the country's restrictive economic provisions is not a panacea for its economic woes. Instead, Congress should focus more on urgent measures that address poverty and development, corruption, infrastructure and other problems.
Solita Collas-Monsod, former NEDA head and professor emeritus of the University of the Philippines School of Economics, argues that no evidence supports the underlying assumption that foreign direct investments would lead to growth, and that amending the Constitution is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition to attract them.
Jose Enrique Africa, executive director of the IBON Foundation, shares Monsod’s view, saying that despite vastly growing investment inflows, he has not seen the promised national economic progress.
Congress, not the Constitution, Is the Problem
As a concerned citizen, it is my opinion that the problem is not the Constitution but rather our Congress itself. I strongly stand against the call to amend our basic law, not because it is flawless but because our Congress is untrustworthy.
Our Congress, especially the lower chamber, has been known for its members’ tendency to toe the line of the sitting chief executive. Indeed, some of its members have a poor track record of taking stands on critical issues facing the country. They have a propensity for selling their principles in exchange for power, regardless of the cost to the nation.
Honestly, I still harbor painful recollections of the Marcos dictatorship and how our legislature served as a rubber stamp during the dark days of martial law. Even if lawmakers vow to amend only the restrictive economic provisions, it is hard to imagine them rewriting the Constitution without touching its political provisions. We cannot deny that once Congress is convened as a constituent assembly, not even God in heaven can stop it from touching any of the political provisions of the Constitution.
What about a constitutional convention where people directly elect their delegates? Admittedly, while a constitutional convention is more democratic and less partisan than a constituent assembly, there is still no guarantee that it will produce a good document. Like a constituent assembly, once a constitutional convention is constituted, it will exist as an independent body with plenary powers of its own. In such a case, it is free to pursue its own agenda. There will be no way to stop it if it decides to touch any political provisions in the Constitution.
In addition, a constitutional convention is more expensive and tedious as it requires elections of delegates. Can we afford to spend billions of pesos on this when our people are faced with many urgent issues that require urgent attention from the government?
Enlightened Citizenry Needed for a Good Constitution
One of the biggest problems facing the country today is that we lack an enlightened citizenry with the ability to choose what is best for the country. Yes, we need citizens who can understand the pros and cons of the Charter change so they can speak out and contribute thoughtfully to public discussions. We need citizens who can speak up for the truth about what is best for the country, for our people and for democracy, lest we invite self-serving interests to influence the outcome of any Charter change.
We cannot produce the best document in the land without electing competent and dedicated people to Congress. And we cannot put the right people in Congress unless we develop an enlightened citizenry that elects them. Thomas Jefferson, a principal author of the American Declaration of Independence (1776), said:
"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic." Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. "It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens."
Sadly, many of our citizens lack basic knowledge of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, despite its study being a required course in colleges and universities.
According to the 2018 survey, 74 percent of Filipinos have no knowledge or have little knowledge about the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The majority of Filipinos simply lack the ability to make good judgments on issues that call for a basic understanding of fundamental law.
More Enabling Laws Needed
Today is not the right time to push for a Charter change. I share the view of Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, that the country’s problems are not due to the Constitution but rather due to the failure to implement its provisions. We need laws that focus more on poverty alleviation, spurring development, generating job opportunities and containing corruption.
Christian Monsod, one of the original framers of the 1987 Constitution (Source: ABS-CBN News)
If Congress wants to make our Constitution more responsive to our country's needs, it must do its duty to enact more laws and ensure that they are fully implemented. Instead, it is still adamant about seeking Charter change when there are other ways to address the country’s economic problems. Is Congress acting out of love for the country or lust for power?
Jacob Apostol is a former lecturer at the Foundation Academy in Amsterdam and a human rights activist. He is one of the founders of the FILMIS Association, an organization for undocumented migrant workers in the Netherlands.
More from Jacob Apostol
