Constitution Framer Monsod: Don't blame Charter for country's ills
MANILA, Philippines — One of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution said Thursday it is illogical to blame the Charter for the ills plaguing the country and argued that the fundamental law of the land “is not the problem, [but] is part of the solution.”
Speaking during a Senate hearing on Charter change, lawyer Christian Monsod said the problems that the country faces were not borne out of the Constitution but because of the failure to implement its provisions.
“I would argue instead that we have largely failed in human development not because of the Constitution, but because we haven’t implemented it, especially its provisions on social justice and human rights and local autonomy,” Monsod told the Senate panel on constitutional amendments and revision of codes.
He said Framers of the Constitution drafted it in the context of “gross inequalities and mass poverty” and to introduce “radical changes” to what he called a feudalistic and dynastic political system.
But some of those pushing for changes to the Constitution appeared to have not been convinced by Monsod as they argued that it is time to introduce tweaks to the fundamental law to bring about change in society.
“‘Pag binago po natin ang ating Saligang Batas at gumawa tayo ng mas maayos na istraktura, mas makakagawa po tayo ng tama at angkop at mas epektibo ng solusyon sa ating problema,” said Ding Generoso, spokesperson of the consultative committee formed by former President Rodrigo Duterte to amend the Constitution.
(If we change our Constitution and we create better structures, we will be able to create right, suitable and more effective solutions to our problems.)
Monsod, however, said he believes that proponents of Charter change are “barking up the wrong tree.” He stressed that change must come from the bottom, particularly the barangays which are citizens’ first point of contact with the government.
“It’s a long distance run of commitment and endurance. But until we get a new generation of leaders who come from the poor, there will be no real change in this country,” he said.
Still, Generoso said this “long distance run” might take too long.
“Pagka ganoon po ang susundin natin, eh aabutin po tayo ng second coming ni Jesus Christ,” he said.
(If we follow that, well that would take until the second coming of Jesus Christ.)
Old questions hound new talks
There have been many attempts to introduce changes to the Constitution, beginning from the term of the late President Fidel Ramos, but none of them have so far succeeded as critics have raised the specter of a possible term extension for politicians, particularly the chief executive.
Center for Excellence in Local Governance executive director Jonathan Malaya, a longtime advocate of Charter change, told senators that now is the best time to propose changes to the Constitution as the terms of office of lawmakers and the president have just begun.
“Ngayon po ang tamang panahon dahil pasimula pa lang ang termino ng Kongreso. ‘Pag palapit ang presidential elections, sasabihin na naman the president wants to extend his term,” Malaya said.
(Now is the right time because Congress is only beginning its term. If this comes near the presidential elections, they’ll say that the president wants to extend his term.)
But talks on Charter change in the 19th Congress is still at its infancy, with the old questions still hounding new discussions on the push to amend or revise the Constitution.
These include if the Constitution should be amended or revised through a constituent assembly, which would see Congress convene as a new body that will propose amendments or revisions to the Charter, or through a constitutional convention, which would require a new body composed of new representatives who would propose tweaks to the fundamental law.
And if Congress does convene into a constituent assembly, as some lawmakers favor due to its perceived cost efficiency over a constitutional convention, the question remains if the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote separately or jointly.
Monsod admitted during the hearing that it was an “oversight” on the part of the constitutional committee that drafted the 1987 Constitution as it failed to specify how Congress sitting as a constituent assembly would vote.
But he said that the spirit of the Constitution dictates that members of the constituent assembly must vote separately.
- Latest
- Trending
