The Constitution of the Philippines, ratified by plebiscite on Feb. 2, 1987, has been in force for 36 years, the longest period of uninterrupted democratic governance in the history of the Republic. President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. has declared that changing the Constitution “is not a priority,” pointing out that “there are so many other things that we need to do first.” This comes as no surprise. Constitutional change has never been in the forefront of the President’s agenda since he took office on June 30, 2022. “We can attain our goals under the 1987 Constitution,” the President added.
Advocates of charter change in Congress expressed both respect and disagreement. Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, who has been presiding over hearings in the House of Representatives, said that while the chamber acknowledges the President’s view, it reserves the right to pursue its own directions. His Senate counterpart, Sen. Robin Padilla, was emphatic in asserting that amendments to the constitution were necessary to remove institutional roadblocks to liberalizing the economy and incentivizing foreign investors’ participation.
Other senators have observed that charter amendments have been rendered unnecessary by the recent enactment of new laws that have liberalized foreigners participation in the economy through the Public Service Act, Retail Trade Liberalization Act and Foreign Investments Act.
Advocates of constitutional amendments have taken different pathways.
In the Duterte administration, a study group headed by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno proposed the adoption of a federal form of government. This proposal was stymied by the Mandanas-Garcia ruling of the Supreme Court that increased the share of local government units (LGUs) in the internal revenue allocation (IRA) of taxes collected.
Charter change was not proposed in Congress during the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III from 2010 to 2016.
During the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Supreme Court rejected the petition of Sigaw ng Bayan in 2009, declaring that the petition was defective because the proponents did not show the people the full text of the proposed amendments.
In 1997, during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos, the Supreme Court ruled against the petition of the People’s Initiative for Reform Modernization and Action (PIRMA) that initiated a signature campaign for amending the Constitution, including a shift to parliamentary government and the lifting of term limits of elected officials, including the President. According to the Supreme Court, there was no enabling law for the conduct of the people’s initiative, and that the group’s petition was defective.
Instead of pursuing their agenda for charter change, legislators may wish to focus on the President’s priority bills that are deemed essential in pursuing his 8-point socioeconomic development agenda. Most urgent among these are: the Fiscal Year 2023 General Appropriations Bill, Amendments to Republic Act (RA) No. 11709 (AFP Professionalism), Maharlika Investment Fund, the Mandatory Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) and National Service Training Program; the proposed Tax Package 3 or Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act; the proposed Tax Package 4 or Passive Income and Financial Intermediary Taxation Act (PIFITA); and the Government Financial Institutions Unified Initiatives to Distressed Enterprises for Economic Recovery (GUIDE) bill.