THE APTNESS OF CHARTER CHANGE

A Speech Delivered By

HON. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR.

15^th House of Delegates National Convention

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

The Leyte Park Resort

April25-27, 2002

The amendment of the 1987 Constitution has, time and again, been the subject of debates, educated or otherwise.  Some say, the fundamental law is no longer responsive to the demands of modern times or relevant to the needs of our people.  Others argue that the Constitution is serving our needs well, and should not be tinkered with now that there are real and urgent problems to contend with.

For the last 15 years, our nation had been governed under the 1987 Constitution. This must be long enough for its imperfections, its cracks, crevices and loopholes to emerge, crystallized and be detected.  Our people must have experienced enough which part of our Constitution served well, and which parcels have rooms for improvements.

The 1987 Constitution was written by a Constitutional Commission and approved by 88% of Filipino electorate during the presidency of Pres. Cory Aquino. It was immediately criticized to have been drafted with the mission of vindictiveness against the Marcos dictatorship.

During the time of Pres. Fidel Ramos, there was a petition to emend the Constitution by people’s initiative -- a new means and mode of amending the charter by direct action of the people. It was an attempt to exercise the true will of the sovereign people, an opportunity to experience democracy in its pristine glory.

It was in that campaign to amend the charter, that the term Cha-Cha was coined – to signify Charter Change.  The controversy was so heated up that it split the Supreme Court in the middle with a final vote of six justices for and six justices against dismissing the petition, with three abstentions. Although it was filed by an independent, private lawyer, it was popularly known as the PIRMA/ Cha-Cha petition.

The Supreme Court, in disposing of or dismissing the PIRMA petition, blazed a new trail in Constitutional Law. It ruled, strangely enough, that the enabling law for constitutional amendment by people’s initiative was inadequate and incomplete.  Constitutional amendment by people’s initiative was denied by the Supreme Court, even as it declared the enabling law constitutional,  allegedly because the enabling law was inadequate and incomplete.  That was a very strange ruling in constitutional law -- never before  and hopefully never again to be adopted by the highest tribunal.

You are well aware that when the validity of a law is questioned, the Supreme Court had only to declare said law as constitutional, or unconstitutional, as the case may be. In the PIRMA/Cha-Cha petition, the Supreme Court did not allow amendment by people’s initiative, not because the enabling law was unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court declared the enabling law as constitutional.  It denied the amendment for the strange legal dictum that the constitutional enabling law was inadequate and incomplete.

The PIRMA Cha-Cha was fought fiercely due to the general belief then that it was a ploy to extend the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos, although the petition was actually an honest attempt to  improve the Constitution with its inherent defects in order to meet changing social, political and economic demands of the time.

During Pres. Joseph Estrada’s administration, there was again a move to amend the Constitution, known this time as Concord. But it fizzled out and ended even before it begun.   The emotional resistance against allowing foreigner to own lands was so strong that the proponents decided to abandon the proposition.

And now under Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the move to amend the Constitution is again resurrected – obviously with vigor.  President Arroyo had declared she is not in favor of amending the Constitution now, because of the more pressing problems than changing the charter. But Pres. Arroyo is not against or discouraging genuine efforts of congressional leaders to move for charter change.  She has softened as a matter of fact her stand, probably brought about by the overwhelming acceptance by the people for constitutional change.  Her position however, to the effect that she will not object to the move provided her priority bills will be passed by congress got a blistering rebuke from the House of Representatives on the simple ground that the President has no authority to order an independent body like the legislature, a co-equal branch of the government to do her bidding.

The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a commission of appointed commissioners. Not elected delegates of the people. The Constitutional Commission was convened at the call of a revolutionary government, governing under an interim revolutionary constitution. The drafting of the charter was under time pressure. Then  Pres. Corazon  Aquino was hurrying to erase the vestiges of the Marcos dictatorship -- as she was rearing to restore as soon as possible the institutions of democracy in the country.

The resulting document of our fundamental law --  the 1987 Charter --  is a verbose instrument riddled with multifarious innovations, some of which have proven to be more atrocious than the institutions it supplanted.  We have examples of these legal monstrosities,  as the party-list elections, the multi-party systems, and the reelection bans.

Attempts for charter change had been widely and fiercely challenged, not only by Cory and the Catholic Church, but also by many other groups because they fear that charter changes were, and are introduced only and always for selfish interests. Cha-cha is always suspect   as for extension of one’s term of office,  for promoting certain political or economic agenda.

This fear, however, is not compelling under Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is serving the balance of the term of ex-Pres. Joseph Estrada.  Pres. Arroyo is eligible to run for president in 2004.  Given her strong and focused leadership and clear visions, this probably maybe the best time to amend the Constitution.  Pres. Arroyo, more than any one else, needs to bridge the gaps among us,  and lay the better framework and  workable systems for the next presidency.

A significant portion of our population however has shown positive reaction to amend the Constitution, but is having deep reservations on the political agenda of the major players.  It is the song, not the singer, so they say?

According to one theory, the President’s objection to a constitutional change is the popular clamor to adopt a parliamentary form of government, where the prime minister is elected by his peers in the parliament.  Given this scenario, the advocates of this theory strongly believes that in a parliamentary form of government, the present Speaker Jose De Venecia, Jr., will beat President Arroyo handily.  On the other hand, retaining the present form of government, there’s no way Speaker De Venecia to be elected at large as president.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land.  It lays the legal, political, economic and social framework of the state. It is the fountainhead of all principles of governance and policies of government.  A faulty Constitution spawns flawed visions, flawed policies, freak decisions, and falters actions to the endless detriment of the citizenry.  A flawed Constitution is the vortex of an endless vicious cycle that usually mires the nation in perpetual poverty and degradation.  None one among us favors such situation.

Now is the time to change our post-dictatorship, transition charter.  It was conceived, minted, and ratified at a time when government was shaky and unstable. It was crafted in reaction to bitter experiences and profound suffering in the benighted Marcos era.  Such ought not motivate the framing of a system for the present and future Filipinos.

There are really contentious issues that our people must get seriously involved with in choosing what must be written or unwritten in the charter of the third-millennium Philippines.  

Perhaps we have now realized the irrelevance of the multi-party system.  We may now wish to reinstate the two-party system, to restore the legitimate political parties, where the ability count  and principles matter; where money is distinct from merits;  where stardom in make-believe life is not  confused for name-recall in public service.

Perhaps we have already seen the illogic and confusion bred by sector representatives in congress.  Party-list representatives supposedly have national constituency, like senators, but they are dumped in the House of Representatives.  If we go by the nature of the Constitutional classifications, the party list members are neither congressmen nor senators – like the bat – it is neither a fowl nor animal. They are not even elected by their names, or by the sectors they are supposed to represent.  They are supposed to represent the marginalized in society!  Congressmen represent all interests in the district they represent, of course including the marginalized members of society.

It is also important to require academic qualifications when running for public office.  Residency and the ability to read and write are not enough to qualify a person to run for public office that require full understanding of governmental policies and systems.  A person vying for an elective position must have a deep appreciation for political institutions in order to make him an effective tool for governance.

It is also imperative at this moment to restore the senatorial districts.  As retired Justice Isagani Cruz contends in his Inquirer column, “election at large for senators has become too expensive and prone to irregularities but could be easily detected in smaller electoral units.”

Region 8 consists of the provinces of Southern Leyte, Leyte, Biliran, Northern, Eastern and Western Samar.  For over 20 years, no one from our region has been elected to the senate. Senators were elected at large and those based on Luzon has the advantage of media mileage and exposure, whether by being a basketball star or an actor of fantasy b or even c movies.

The present system of electing senators is a major factor in the brewing dissatisfaction and frustrations of our people in the Visayas and Mindanao.  This is also the principal reason why these islands remain undeveloped. 

The appointment process in the judiciary must be brought back to the Commission on Appointments like in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The fraternization and lack of transparency of the process of nomination have rendered the Judicial Council ineffective in the right choice of the members of the judiciary.

I fully agree with Justice Cruz that the current voting requirement for the declaration of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court should be discarded.  “The two-thirds rule under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions are more reasonable and practical.  Under the present charter, such declaration can be made by as few as five justices of the Supreme Court, constituting a majority of the quorum of eight.”  This set-up does not represent the judgment of the entire body.

Provisions safeguarding the constitution from the state’s militaristic protectionism should also be given adequate attention. Under the present Constitution, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the state. But who decides when the people and the State need the protection of the AFP? In the 1935 and the 1973 constitutions, the government is the protector of the State and the people and not the Armed Forces. This dangerous provision virtually legalizes coup d’ etat.

The term limit for elective officials also must be lifted.  I believe that this particular provision was inserted because of fear that the incumbent officials might perpetuate themselves in the same position until they have accumulated all the wealth of this land, such as the case during the Martial Law years.   

Three years is too short for any elected official to fully grasp the responsibilities that his position entails.  Before he has even familiarized himself with the nature his job, the term is already over.   So while in position, it is most probable that the official is already preparing for a reelection bid and his term has not been enough to serve his constituents well.

In most countries, including the US, all elected officials, except the president, can continue to hold office as long as the people vote for them. That is why many US senators, congressmen, governors, etc… are in office for over 20 to 30 years. Does this mean that by limiting the terms of our officials to 9 years we are more democratic than the Americans?

And because of the numerous elections that we hold, we have been wasting too much money that could have been spent for infrastructure projects and economic programs.  If the term is extended from three to four years, then the money saved could have been allocated for more important affairs of the State.

In fact, this provision did not serve its purpose.  When the officials are no longer eligible to run for office after they have exhausted three consecutive terms in the same position, they let their spouses or children run in their place.  This practice has produced mediocre output. 

As Cruz argued, the term limits for members of Congress and local elective officials have only aggravated the problem of political dynasties and enabled inexperienced and incompetent relatives to serve only as benchwarmers.  Some families even hold their constituencies as if they were exclusive fiefdoms to control.

And in cases where there are election protests, there are probably no time left for him to hold office because of how slow electoral disputes are resolved.

The 1987 Constitution has not been a catalyst to our economic growth and political stability.  Instead, it was just a reactionary law, which attempted to patch the loopholes of the 1973 Constitution that paved way for the rule of Martial Law.  There is no perfect Constitution, but at least we are exerting our greatest efforts to attune the provisions of our Constitution to our more persistent needs.

The Constitution of a nation is the continuing yardstick of a people’s maturity, patriotism and political will in the pursuit of freedom, justice and prosperity. That is why a good Constitution is a dynamic instrument that grows and lives and changes, because it is a framework of a system of living and of governance of people with minds, hearts and soul.

With this thought, I wish, henceforth, that we shall look at our Constitution with seriousness, sincerity, genuine interest and concern, that it may ultimately be the repository of the best in us Filipinos.