During all the months and weeks that I have been following the public discourse regarding the idea of revising the Constitution, an old homespun Yankee saying has been on my mind. The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The message of the saying is simple and very practical: Fix something that needs fixing, not something that doesn’t.
Judging from the utterances and actions of President Rodrigo Duterte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the members of the Constitution-reviewing Consultative Committee and Mr. Duterte’s most rabid supporters, the 1987 Constitution has become inimical to the country’s best interests and needs to be totally revised at the earliest possible time. It is broken and it needs to be fixed, they are in effect saying.
Is the 1987 Constitution broken and in need of fixing?
The best answer to the question is another question. Under what Basic Law has the Philippines economy been able to register the GDP (gross domestic product) growth rates that have made the Philippine economy the second fastest growing economy in East Asia during the last few years? Has it not been the same Constitution that the pro-Charter change people now passionately want to cast aside? If in fact the 1987 Constitution has been capable of maintaining economic conditions conducive to the attainment of 7 percent annual GDP growth, why must it be junked?
Nor have any questions been raised about the soundness of the checks-and-balance structure of the government or about the adequacy of the authority, within that structure, of each branch of the government. Successive chief justices of the Supreme Court have shown themselves to be content with the extent of the power granted the judiciary by the framers of the 1987 Constitution. The swagger and the chutzpah of the current Speaker of the House of Representative indicates that she does not regard the legislature as lacking in clout and status. As for the Executive department, most constitutional law experts are of the view that the 1987 Constitution vested the presidency with power sufficient to make the occupant of Malacanang a very powerful individual. Certainly, President Duterte has not been heard its complain that he does not have enough power to do his job effectively.
An issue that is repeatedly brought forward as a basis for revising the Constitution is the 60-40 limitation on foreign ownership of Philippine land, natural resources and public utilities. Although the Constitution—this provision first appeared in the 1935 Constitution—can be validly assailed on economic grounds, it bears saying that under the present Constitution (1) the Philippine economy has in recent years attained annual GDP growth rates in the vicinity of 7 percent, (2) the Philippines has become the leader of the world BPO (business process outsourcing) industry and (3) numerous significant joint ventures with foreigners have been established in the financial, commercial and industrial fields.
Good institutions grant the duly elected representatives of the people, assembled in the legislature, the right to enact laws designed to improve society and promote the aspirations of the citizenry. The 1987 Constitution is no exception, and under its authority Congress has enacted all the laws needed to improve the working of Philippine society. The enactment of laws intended to improve and promote this country’s politics, economy, environment, administration and social relations has been entirely possible under the 1987 Constitution.
Yet the Filipino people are being told that the present system of government—a unitary system headed by a president vested by the Constitution with the power of control or supervision over 81 provinces and two autonomous regions—has been a deterrent to this country’s progress and that the better way forward is federalism. The rule of so-called Imperial Manila must be ended, the Filipino people are told; they will be better for the regions if the present Constitution is replaced by a Basic Law that gives them greater control over their lives. Shorn of all the theoretical and legal niceties, that means greater control over the resources found within and revenues generated by the regions.
If it is solely about greater access by the regions to their resources and revenues—if the proponents of federalism have no hidden agenda—the anti-federalism will carry the day. There is absolutely no need for federalism. All that one has to do to prove the truth of this statement is read the Local Government Code of 1991.
Mandated by the 1987 Constitution, the Local Government Code provides for (1) the devolution of specified government functions to the LGUs (local government units) and (2) the sharing between the national governments and the LGUs of the revenues generated by the LGUs within their territorial limits, with the LGUs’ shares to be released to them “automatically.” Thus, the principles of power-sharing and review-sharing have been clearly established. Nothing more needs to be done by the makers of public policy. All that is needed is compliance by the national government with the sharing provisions of the 1987 Constitution. If there has been faithful compliance by the national government, the current agitation for federalism would be nowhere near as strong as it is.
So I say again, if something ain’t broken, don’t fix it. The 1987 Constitution is not broken.