Timely and correct move

There are really more overriding reasons for changing than not changing our constitution. Actually “it aint broke” and need no fixing but certainly it needs some improvements. After all “the biggest room in this world is the room for improvement”. And in our organic law, this room can definitely be found.

The necessity for charter change is more acutely felt now under the present administration because one of its promised goals is reform in many aspects of governance which is admittedly the best way to improve our economy and thus alleviate the long pestering problem of poverty. As the present regime has repeatedly claimed, these reforms primarily entail fighting corruption (kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap). Past experience however show that under the present charter, such a fight has not been so successful. Changing the charter therefore may be necessary for a more successful fight against this plague of graft and corruption besetting our country for a long time now.

Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need to first look into the economic provisions of the charter. As demonstrated by past experiences, some of these provisions must either be deleted or revised to attract more foreign investments. Our Asian neighbors have been outpacing us in economic growth obviously because their charters do not have these provisions or at least contain more investment-friendly ones.

But other amendments are also called for if we really want to at least minimize graft and corruption. We have seen in the past that as every new administration takes over, more than five thousand government positions become vacant because their occupants’ terms of office end simultaneously with that of the outgoing president. Our civil service is indeed highly politicized. Building up a career in it is so difficult. Juicy positions in government change hands every time a new regime takes over. These positions are usually given to supporters of the victor as spoils of victory. The constitutional provision on civil service (Article IX B) should therefore be changed to insulate career officials from the vicissitudes of dirty politics. They should be given more security of tenure. Only cabinet and other highly confidential positions should have the same terms as the incumbent president.

Then the provision prohibiting political dynasty to equalize access to opportunities for public service (Article II, Section 26) should be made self executing and not dependent on the enactment of a law by Congress. The charter should already specify the relatives of elective officials (e.g. spouses, children, siblings) who cannot immediately succeed them upon the expiration of their terms.

In this connection, the party list system of representation in the Lower House should also be looked into and eventually abolished (Article VI Section 5 [2]). This is supposed to equalize opportunities for public service. But as it is happening now, the system has been exploited by politicians to regain on retain power (e.g., the son of a former president running as party list representative of security guards). Besides, the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth and other sectors are already represented by the district representatives of the district where they reside. This party list representation is just a duplication that does not serve any purpose.

Another duplication of function perpetrated by the constitution is the bicameral Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives (Article VI Section 1). The process of legislation of the Lower House is just repeated in the Upper House. Under the present set up, a proposed law or an amendment or repeal of a law actually passes through the same legislative mill twice. While bicameralism has advantages, unicameralism is more advantageous because aside from avoiding duplication, it also promotes efficiency and economy. With one legislative body composed of representatives from the twelve regions in the country, the Congressional budget will be considerably reduced. Its members may therefore be constrained to do purely legislative functions and thus find no more need for the pork barrel that is only the source of corruption.

Fortunately Congress has finally recognized the need to change the charter when the leadership in both chambers recently agreed to convene as a constituent assembly (Con Ass) and propose amendment to, or revision of, our constitution. Indeed, the Con Ass is the least expensive and the most expeditious way of amending or revising our fundamental law. And pursuant to Article XVII, Section 1, Congress is really authorized to do so “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members”.

Certain quarters however interprets this provision to mean that if there are 250 members of the Lower House and 24 members of the Senate, the 3/4 votes of all the 274 members of Congress or at least 209 votes are enough to pass the proposed amendment or revision. So pursuant to this interpretation, the Lower House alone which can muster the 209 votes because it has a membership of 250 can already propose the amendment or revision of the charter even without any single vote from the Senate.

Certainly this is not correct as it is absurd and ridiculous. The law abhors absurdity. Congress has two chambers. In the exercise of its legislative power of passing, repealing, or amending ordinary laws or statutes, the two chambers always vote separately. So with more reason should the two chambers vote separately in the exercise of their more important constituent power of amending or revising the basic law of the land. Hence, to propose amendment or revision to our constitution 168 members of the House of Representatives and 18 members of the Senate must vote for it.

If we really want change, we should change our charter first. And PNoy should support this move if he wants to succeed in his fight against corruption and if he wants government officials to take the straight and narrow path (daang matuwid).

Email us at [email protected].