This is an article repost.
Do we really have to change our Charter (Cha-cha)? This is another question that keeps on coming back. One way or another it has distracted us from moving forward along the road to progress and catching up with our neighbors in this part of the world. For almost 15 years now this question has been discussed and debated but not conclusively resolved.
Actually this question can only be resolved if we stop discussing it and just come up right away with the particular proposed changes. In other words we really don’t have to answer first whether our Charter needs changes. We can just immediately tackle the proposed changes.
Under the Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1, any amendment to or revision of the Charter can already be proposed; (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; (2) by a constitutional convention called for that purpose by two-thirds of all the members of Congress which can on the other hand also submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention by a majority vote of its members. Amendments to (but not revisions of) the Charter may likewise be done directly by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voter therein (Section 2).
Amendment contemplates changing one or some provisions by improving them, adding or pruning some terms in them as to make them clearer. Revision involves a review of the entire document to find out the extent of the changes it has to undergo. For instance, changing the form of government which is among the proposals being floated may require revision.
So far, we have only tried the peoples’ initiative and it failed, not because the people decided that Charter change is not necessary but because of technicality. Obviously the individuals behind the initiative had some selfish political motives and committed short cuts which the Supreme Court (SC) found. The SC shot it down because it saw that the whole move was not the initiative of the people but only of some groups trying to perpetuate themselves in power.
Apparently the less tedious, less expensive, more comprehensive and immediately doable mode of Charter amendment or revision is through Congress. Member/s of Congress who believe that the Charter needs changes could come up with their proposals; or anyone who has some proposals to amend or revise our Constitution could just approach their Representative in the Lower House or a Senator and submit the same to him/her.
Any member of Congress can thereafter make a move. He/she can file a resolution in the chamber to convene Congress into a constituent assembly or call a constitutional convention (con-con) to take up the amendments or revisions. If either of the resolutions is approved then the process continues. If the resolution is shot down, it means that the people themselves through their chosen representatives see no need to change the Charter; that we should just forget about the Cha-cha and move on.
But I still believe that if members of Congress really have the country’s interest in their hearts, they should adopt a resolution convening itself into a constituent assembly, or calling a con-con for purposes of amending and/or revising the Charter. Since the Charter was approved in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987, intervening events and circumstances show that it really needs some amendments, if not revisions.
Among the provisions crying for changes and should be looked into are those involving: (1) the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources which are limited only to Filipino citizens and corporations 60 percent owned by Filipinos (Section 2, Article XII); (2) the ownership of alienable lands of the public domain which is limited only to qualified individuals while private corporations are allowed to acquire the same only through lease up to 50 years and only up to a maximum of 1,000 hectares (Section 3 Article XII); (3) the limitation of certain areas of business and the operation of a public utility to Filipinos or Corporations 60 percent owned by Filipinos (Sections 10 and 11). It has been observed that these restrictions have deterred foreign investors from coming and putting their money here, a move that experts say would provide a big boost to our economy.
Other provisions are those involving the Legislative Department particularly the bicameral composition of Congress into a Senate and a House of Representatives (Section 1 Article VI). It has been validly pointed out time and again that a unicameral Congress would result in a more efficient and faster legislative work as it would eliminate the duplication of the process in enacting laws. Also if Congress is composed only of a single body, there will be big savings in expenditures in terms of lower budget and less pork barrel allocations.
Then in the provisions involving the Executive Department, it is also worth looking into the limitation on the power of the President to appoint within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term (Section 15, Article VII). While the provision seems to be clear enough and needs no further interpretation, the recent case involving the appointment of no less than the Chief Justice reveal a loophole that needs to be plugged.
Another provision that requires more teeth and has to be made self-executory is the provision guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. The Constitution should already define “political dynasty” and set forth the mechanism on how it could be prevented. These matters cannot be left to Congress because it is the very place where political dynasties are well entrenched.
These are only some provisions showing the need for Charter change. There are many more that should be looked into. So let us stop talking about it and just do it.
* * *
E-mail at: [email protected]
==============================================================================
By: Jose C. Sison – A Law Each Day
Source: The Philippine Star, Aug. 19, 2011
To view the original article, click here.
Comment here