Inevitable change

"Amending the present Constitution merits a timely consideration."

Proposals for constitutional amendment have been up for discussion numerous times in the Legislative. The current and past administrations have seen several contentious provisions in the 1987 Constitution, particularly on its inapplicability to and debilitating effects on these modern times. Many political and constitutional scholars say that a Constitution is supposed to endure changes in society over time. However, the extensive and substantial changes in the political, economic, and social atmosphere in the country over the last decades now demand a re-examination of the present Constitution in order to adapt to major developments.

The 1987 Constitution has been regarded as a reactionary one. It can be recalled that the appointment of the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission was not through popular election. While many criticized the selection process, it is deemed that the crafted Constitution stood by the belief that anything that favors the Marcoses was bad for the country. The provisions of the current Constitution were carefully worded as an anti-authoritarian and anti-dictatorial revolution through enactment of democratic policies and a presidential form of government.

Despite the good intentions of the framers of the Constitution, our current fundamental law debilitates governance and national growth at the present time. Hence, to fully maximize our national capacities, constitutional amendment is undoubtedly necessary.

I have long supported the idea of amending the Constitution. Certain provisions have become anachronistic due to new scientific discoveries, inventions, and technological innovations. The expansion of foreign trade and international relations require flexibility of certain economic provisions. Moreover, Supreme Court decisions which overruled past interpretations and filled the gaps in certain constitutional provisions need to be reflected to avoid unnecessary and repetitive disputes.

Apart from this, at the local government level, the inequitable distribution of the national revenues poses a challenge in the implementation of national programs and local projects, especially in provinces. The decentralization of government has proven to cause confusion in the delivery of public services, especially in infrastructure development. These issues led to the call for a federal system of government back in the previous Congress which persists today to allow provinces to rightfully enjoy the revenues generated within their jurisdictions.

For these reasons, we can agree that amending the present Constitution merits a timely consideration. A more systematic legislative process must be adopted to allow unimpeded discussions and debates on the proposed amendments. Public consultation and participation must be assured to render an inclusive and comprehensive discourse. The end goal is to come up with effective, justifiable, and sufficient provisions that will withstand changes through the years, taking into account the rate of growth and development in all aspects of society. The new Constitution should be reflective of the national objective to improve the lives of the people, resolve political and social tensions, push for economic development, and promote peace and order in the entire country.

Notwithstanding this, we should not lose sight of the present need to resolve the COVID-19 crisis. While I believe that the government can pursue different priorities and actions at the same time, the primary focus should still be on the protection of the health of the people in the midst of this pandemic. While we take steps in ensuring economic productivity, we should take big leaps to contain transmission of the disease, address the limited number of health facilities, and provide the necessary assistance to our health workers, local government units, and COVID-19 patients. At the end of the day, the government is expected to respond to the needs of its people and serve to the best of its abilities.