Piolo at Regine, super sipag

Our Constitution really needs some changes. The mere fact that so many constitutional issues are brought before the Supreme Court (SC) readily attests to the existence of several flaws in our charter requiring correction and clarification. While any Basic Law of the land should be dynamic enough to cover constantly changing situations, rapid global developments have somehow rendered some of the provisions in our constitution obsolete. Moreover, with its kilometric verbosity it does not actually possess the primary essence of a fundamental law — that of being “broad but brief”. Hence changing our charter is indeed necessary.

Changing the charter means either amending or revising it. Amendment affects only some provisions without overhauling the entire document. Revision entails a review of the entire document with the aim of rewriting it. Thus changing the form of government from the present presidential to a parliamentary system constitutes a revision of the Constitution.

At this stage, our Constitution only needs an amendment, not a revision. We can have cha-cha without shifting from the Presidential to the Parliamentary system. Changing the form of government is less urgent and more controversial especially because of its association with the personal ambitions of some politicians wanting to hold on to power.

The more urgent and less controversial changes in our charter mainly pertain to some economic and political aspects that will further contribute to the “promotion of the general welfare essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy”.

First and foremost are the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution that shut the door to the entry of more foreign investments. Aside from purely technical and financial assistance, joint venture or production sharing agreements for the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources should be opened to foreign owned corporations; so with the management and ownership of mass media and the advertising industry. In order to protect public interest, State control and supervision over these industries and resources however should be retained.

Secondly, and based on the experiences of the past and recently concluded elections, certain political provisions in the charter have to be amended in preparation for the next 2010 elections. Urgently crying for review and much needed change are the provisions pertaining to the following:

1) The Commission on Elections. It is supposed to be an independent Constitutional Commission but it is too dependent and beholden to the Executive Department and Legislative Department that determine who will be its chairman and members. This method of appointment inevitably forces the commissioners to play politics. Appointments of Commissioners should therefore be lodged in a less politicized Department like the Judiciary. After all, the Comelec also performs quasi-judicial functions. To be more efficient, the Comelec should also be separated into two divisions: one doing the administrative functions and the other, the quasi judicial functions. Each division shall have its own commissioners;

2) The qualifications of voters should also be upgraded beyond the usual age and residency requirement. Literacy and property requirements should also be imposed. The same should be done with the qualifications of candidates. Beyond the usual citizenship, residency, age, and literacy (able to read and write) requirement, educational background and experience in public service should also be imposed;

3) The anti-political dynasty provision should be more specific as to its coverage and made self-executing without the need of an enabling legislation;

4) The party-list system of representation should be abolished. Representatives in the Lower House should be elected by voters of legislative districts only. Election of Senators should be regional.

5)Political parties with concrete platforms and practical programs of government should be revived, encouraged and strengthened with government support and incentives;

6) Elections should be held every four years instead of every three years. The terms of office of the elected officials should therefore be correspondingly adjusted effective after 2010 elections;

Other provision in the charter that may be looked into is the manner of appointing members of the Judicial and Bar Council that was created to recommend appointees to the judiciary so as to make it more independent and insulate it from politics. The idea is to limit the Presidential power to appoint members of the Judiciary only from a list of JBC nominees. But since JBC members are themselves Presidential appointees, presidential influence also plays a vital role in drawing up said list. JBC members should therefore be selected by other means. Otherwise it should be abolished.

Finally, the vague provision on the amendment or revision of the Constitution by three-fourths of all members of Congress should be clarified. To avoid further controversy, it should be categorically stated that voting shall be separately done by — members of the Senate and — members of the Lower House.

Talks about charter change (cha-cha) have been going on for more than ten years already. Steps to cha-cha were already taken. But up to now nothing has happened. The problem here again is credibility. Apparently Filipinos doubt the motive of those pushing for the cha-cha. The changes they want particularly the shift to the parliamentary system, the unconstitutional and deceptive methods they employ in ramming through those changes as confirmed by the Supreme Court itself, and their imprudent haste in pushing through with their fancied changes right before the last election, somehow arouse public cynicism that they have some hidden selfish political agenda.

Right now, even as the last election is not over yet, these same people are again reviving the move to cha-cha. Unless they stop their move and allow a more credible, independent, civic minded individuals or groups to initiate the changes, the country faces another debilitating and bitter political showdown. It looks like we will be never spared of non-stop politics.

E-mail us at [email protected]