PAGBABAGO
Has the pandemic exacerbated key constitutional issues? How has COVID-19 affected the performance of the Constitution? And how can we keep the Charter working during emergency periods? These were some of the questions raised during the webinar organized by the UP Political Science Department and the Center for Integrative Studies (CIDS), together with the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)last Thursday.
Early this year, UP and CIDS published the Constitutional Performance Assessment of the 1987 Constitution which showed that most of the technical requirements of the Charter were met. These include holding elections, and enacting laws. However, in terms of substantial compliance or meeting the five goals of democratization; decentralization, social justice, human rights, and gender equality; peace and conflict resolution; and economic development, the achievement was limited.
The assessment by UP political science professors – Dr. Maria Ela Atienza, Dr. Aries Arugay, Dr. Jan Robert Go, Dr. Rogelio Alicor Panao, and Dr. Jean Encinas-Franco, and moderated by Ms. Amada Cats-Baril, IDEA’s Constitutional Building Processes Adviser for Asia, focused on electoral institutions, legislative-executive relations, judiciary, accountability institutions, local governments, rights, security sectors, economy and labor, citizenship and equality
The assessment methodology utilized is compliance with the Constitution in a “thin” or “thick” sense, “thin” referring to to compliance with mandates such as passing legislation or formulating policies and “thick” as a more complex process as it requires qualitative assessment on whether the Constitution has created a stable system of governance or equality between citizens, deepened democracy, or transformed conflict.”
The findings showed only “thin” compliance with internal criteria used in performance assessment. Many of the technical requirements were met in terms of setting up mandated institutions, enacting necessary laws and actions. However, “thick” or substantial compliance in the five goals noted above were limited.
The panelists cited examples of government performance in response to COVID, underscoring positive innovations that showed adherence and support to the mandates of the Constitution on one hand, and limitations, on the other. Trends and warning signals needing response were likewise cited. Here are some of the assessment findings:
- Lack of proactive and prevented response to the pandemic. Examples given were “government’s downplaying of COVID-19, and slow response as it had taken a month before a state of calamity was declared.
- Positives include “government was able to set up facilities, and improvements in testing, although not enough.”
- Limitations – “lifting of strict lockdown resulted in the rise of cases
- On legislative-executive relations, there was “thin” compliance in terms of designing institutions that would bring about greater oversight powers to the legislative branch in pursuit of separation of powers. Political parties and pork-barrel politics inhibited strong and independent legislature. COVID-19 gave the executive branch “immense agenda-setting powers” over Congess and further weakening of separation of powers.
- Fast growth of emergency powers. Citing public emergencies, the President was allowed to certify bills as urgent In fact he was allowed 30 emergency powers to cushion the economic impact of the pandemic. But this, as some legal experts noted, could “slide into a permanent and unconstitutional regime.”
- In the Judiciary, legal proceedings were affected but alternatives such as video-conferencing and e-filing of complaints were made possible through information technology.
- Challenges in the electoral process – improving voter registration. addressing postponement of plebiscites and barangay election; dealing with issues of political dynasties and party-list system, and direct democracy through initiative and referendum such as the nationwide signature petition.
- On economic provisions, ensuring equitable access of the marginalized and the vulnerable, some of the worst hit during the pandemic.
- The Bayanihan Act allowed flexible work arrangements, hazard pay, and rental moratorium and other social amelioration privileges
Small businesses and the middle class were, however, left out.
- The healthcare system was overwhelmed. There was poor telecom infrastructure inadequate Internet access and learning resources for blended learning.
- While decentralization is a desired objective, the pandemic with the emergency powers given to the President had made top-down decision-making imperative.
Documenting these processes in the social, economic, and political life of the nation as they relate to the performance of our Constitution during these times is a significant first step. As a panelist noted, “Democracy cannot be suspended because of the pandemic.”
My email, [email protected]