OF SUBSTANCE AND SPIRIT
By this time, all the chips are down and we know that the 1987 Philippine Constitution might be revised — as when we revamp our form of government, for instance, or change how Congress should vote on any proposed change — or amended — like some alterations to improve some current provisions for better delivery of services by the State, or a more level playing field for economic participants, for instance, by liberalizing the charter’s economic provisions.
Nothing patently wrong with revising or amending this nation’s fundamental law. Either a structural change or some modifications are necessary as long as the philosophy and the ultimate goal would serve the common good.
1Sambayan, a coalition of democratic political forces from all sides of the political spectrum, recently released an incisive perspective on the People’s Initiative to gather signatures and change the charter. As expected, 1Sambayan expressed its strong opposition against this latest attempt to change the nation’s charter through this people’s initiative “in the guise of proposing amendments to its economic provisions.”
What this signature movement would really like to do is to compel both houses of Congress to vote jointly, rather than separately pursuant to the constitutional provision. This is a fundamental issue considering that the House can easily swamp the Senate in a joint session when voting as one house. The principle of check and balance would be totally set aside.
1Sambayan was correct to point out that since it is the House of Representatives that is leading the drive, such a “people’s initiative” is therefore a congressional initiative. This is not allowed under the Constitution. It is no less than a “smokescreen” for a political agenda of keeping political power. The coalition must be referring to the proposed change in the form of government, from presidential to parliamentary. What is unsaid is that it is easier to form a government under a parliamentary system because one has to deal with only a few hundred members of Parliament rather than deal with tens of million voters in a national election. True but that would also make it easier to change government in midstream, and render the whole system even more unstable. Modifying the term limits of elected officials is suspect if this would apply to the incumbents.
As we wrote in our previous columns, both systems of government have good and bad provenance of political and economic governance.
Recently and in the past, we heard arguments that the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed us in the last 36 years. That should be enough reason to change the charter. But 1Sambayan was correct in clarifying that it is our leaders who have failed us. For instance, corruption as the biggest roadblock to good political governance and economic progress, including foreign investment, has been worsened by both political dynasties and nepotism. Both are, for 1Sambayan, “strongly and unequivocally prohibited in our Constitution.” Congress has not passed any law to implement the will of the charter.
While the Constitution promotes justice and equality by its many provisions, 1Sambayan argued that “our leaders commit injustice and even condone extrajudicial killings” and if we may add, red tagging.
Since when can the rule of law, ease of doing business, and strong infrastructure be pursued in the context of charter change?
Undeniably, as a people, we have failed to uphold the spirit of the Philippine Constitution. It is us who need to be revised, our mindset and our spirit, so that when we are offered the opportunity for change as in an electoral exercise, we would not yield our choices to popularity and incompetence, we would be more discerning between real and fake news. It is us who need to be amended, our little ways of indifference that allow those abuses of power escape prosecution and public disdain, that which eats into the very fabric of our democracy.
Sad but true, the signature campaign is most ill-timed. 1Sambayan was correct to declare what is most obvious. More pressing issues should keep us all involved especially our elected officials at all levels of government. Our people have always been right in identifying in many Pulse Asia surveys past and present that the most urgent national concerns are “controlling inflation, wage increase, job creation and poverty reduction.” These gut issues together with food security, public health, and quality education can best be addressed not by a constitutional change, but by appropriate executive action or empowering congressional legislation.
Clearly, as 1Sambayan put it, “the naked truth is that this move is politically motivated, clothed in alleged economic gains.” Indeed, as the 24 senators of the Republic declared yesterday in their latest statement on the signature campaign, “this singular and seemingly innocuous change in the Constitution will open the floodgates to a wave of amendments and revisions that will erode the nation as we know it.”
But what is sad is that because of this political maneuver, the Senate seems to be less interested now in pushing for amendments to the economic provisions in the Constitution. We agree that with the recent amendment of the Public Service Act, we have become more open, and in fact more open to our Asian neighbors which have attracted more foreign investments because they have more robust rule of law, great ease of doing business and many times stronger infrastructure, the competitive platforms of investment and production. Those who invest there have more trust their investment would be more secured and their profitability more sustainable.
By this stance, the Senate is delivering the message that preserving democracy is primordial, that those economic provisions are just that, nothing but a smokescreen for a political agenda. Of course, if the Senate is also dead serious about the economic provisions, it would without compromise uphold its position and resist the signature campaign.
Ultimately, how Malacañang would navigate between the Lower House and the Senate propositions would define the next act. It takes deep political wisdom to fathom how the President is going to pursue modernizing the Constitution for a globalized world. He supports amending the charter’s economic provisions, but he is also open to political changes. And he dislikes jeopardizing the success of the economic amendments.
Without knowing the emerging realignment of political forces, we would rather take to heart the conclusion of 1Sambayan: “The present move is not in accordance with its intention of promoting the interest and welfare of the Filipino people. It is contrary to the goals of prosperity and unity towards nation-building.”
Talking about the convenience of charter change…