Amending the Constitution

If charter change is unavoidable, let’s do it prudently, moderately and carefully. A State’s very existence, strength and stability rest on this most vital document. So tampering with it should not be in a manner that will rock the boat or project an image of volatility. The present charter is admittedly verbose and is not an ideal constitution. It is obviously not flexible enough to keep pace with the dynamic changes happening in and out of our country. But so far, it has adequately served its purpose. The Philippine Republic is still intact and on its feet even if wobbly due to non-stop political bickering. Hence altering this fundamental law should merely involve amendments to several specific provisions that are apparently vague, ineffective, impotent, useless or meaningless. The reforms should not entail a review of the entire document with the intention of totally overhauling or revising the same like the radical change in the form and structure of government that is now being bruited about. In other words we should only have amendments rather than revisions of the charter.

To avert a repeat of the tumultuous affray during the impeachment proceeding in the Lower House last year, Section 3 (5) of Article XI is the first and foremost provision that should be amended. The word "initiated" in this section has been the bone of contention regarding the interpretation of the rule prohibiting the impeachment of the same official within a period of one year. So much legal nit picking has been used to differentiate the word "initiate" from the word "file" as to preclude the mere filing of an impeachment complaint from the coverage of the prohibition. So instead of the present provision declaring that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year", the same should be changed to the simpler and clearer rule that reads: "no impeachment complaint shall be filed against the same official more than once within a period of one year."

The second amendment should focus on Article II Section 26 guaranteeing "equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting "political dynasties as may be defined by law". This is one of the superficial provisions in the charter full of sound but no bite; plenty of zing but no sting. How indeed can a law be passed defining "political dynasty" when the body supposed to enact said law is very nest and breeding ground of political dynasties? To solve this dilemma, the charter itself should be made self- executing by already specifying the relatives who could not run for office to succeed an incumbent elective public official. Thus, by way of an amendment, this section of the constitution should provide that the wife, child, parent, collateral relatives by consanguinity within the first degree of an incumbent elective public official are prohibited from running for the same public office to succeed him.

Another Constitutional provision originally designed for a good purpose but has turned out to be ineffective is Sections 8 Article VIII creating the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) under the supervision of the Supreme Court (SC). It is created supposedly to insulate appointments to the Judiciary from the meddling hands of politicians in the Legislative and Executive Departments and thus make it more independent. But under this section, the JBC’s ex-officio members also belong to the Executive and Legislative Departments while its regular members are appointed by the Chief Executive. Hence the Legislative and Executive Departments still have an influence in the nominations and appointments of judges and justices. This provision should therefore be amended by giving the SC the exclusive power to determine the manner of choosing the members of the JBC and to promulgate rules for said purpose. Or the JBC should just be abolished and its functions reverted back to the Legislative Commission on Appointments where the confirmation process appears to be more thorough and transparent.

A big step towards cleaning our electoral process is the amendment of Section 1, Article V on suffrage. As presently worded, "citizens who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election" can exercise the right of suffrage. The phrase "who shall have resided" should be changed to "who shall have legally resided" so as to disqualify those who are merely actually dwelling but not legally residing in the place they propose to vote. In short, squatters cannot vote in the place where they squat but in the place where they come from and have their legal abode. On the other hand, the provisions on the qualifications of persons running for President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen as provided in Section 2 of Article VII and Sections 2 and 6 of Article VI, particularly their educational background should also be changed. Rather than just being able to read and write, the candidate must at least be a college degree holder. These amendments improve the quality of both voters and candidates which is necessary in selecting the right persons for good governance. It will also prevent our election from degenerating into a popularity contest.

(To be continued)

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]