Need for change

Just recently, resolutions have been filed in the Senate to convene Congress as a constituent assembly to introduce limited amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Authored by Senators Francis Tolentino and Ronald dela Rosa, the resolution highlighted the need for reforms to the 33-year old Constitution in order to aid the country in achieving economic growth, especially during this time of rising global uncertainty. The reforms will focus on so-called democratic and economic provisions of the charter.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is set to resume its debates on the proposed charter change. Among the measures that will be tackled is one filed by the House Speaker himself, one which will add the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to several sections, including those under Article 12 on the national patrimony and economy.

There are three ways by which an amendment to, or a revision, of the Constitution may be proposed. One is by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all of its member. Another is by a constitutional convention, and the third, via a people’s initiative.

A constitutional convention may be called by Congress by a vote of two-thirds of all its members. Meanwhile, Congress may, by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such convention.

Meanwhile, amendments may also be directly proposed by the people through an 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 voters therein.

But whether the amendment or revision of the Constitution is proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention under Section 1, or via people’s initiative under Section 2, Section 3 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the amendment or revision shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.

Of course when we speak of revision, we are talking of fundamental changes while amendments refer to corrections of detail. Changing our form of government requires a revision. Allowing foreign equity in mass media constitutes an amendment.

The easiest way to amend or revise our Constitution would be for Congress to constitute itself as a Constituent Assembly or ConAss to propose the changes. But then again, congressional debates take too long. Then the proposal needs to be ratified by the people. Imagine the time, effort, and money that will have to be spent, just to have a few amendments.

The problem with a revision, however, is that it can become a highly politicized debate and Congress can end up not achieving anything, especially since this will involve fundamental changes.

But one thing is sure: our Constitution needs to be changed. Because it is too long and wordy and detailed, there is not much room to adapt to the changing needs of the time. There is definitely a need to open up some areas to foreign investments and because the limitations are enshrined in the Constitution, it has become difficult to change.

In one article, the United States Senate has noted that for over two centuries, the US Constitution has remained in force partly because it is more a concise statement of national principles rather than a detailed plan of government operation. Thus, the US charter has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the 18th century world in which its creators lived. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992 and the first 10 amendments constitute the Bill of Rights. It also has a little less than 7,000 words and does not go into a lot of details. This flexibility has proven to be a strength over the years.

In another article, it was observed that the writers of the Constitution knew that the world would change in ways they could not predict, and so they attempted to keep it as general as possible, leaving other matters open for interpretation or explanation by Congress by allowing the latter to make laws which shall be necessary and proper and by the Supreme Court.

The next time we revise our Constitution, let us try to make it concise, simple, and in words easily understood by the common tao. When the 1987 Constitution was being proposed, of course the framers wanted to enshrine safeguards to avoid abuses by government. In the process, however, the charter has become rigid and has not been able to keep up with the needs of the times.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]