"At times political decisions must be made, not out of convenience or expediency, but out of conviction and clarity about what must be done for the greater good."
"At times political decisions must be made, not out of convenience or expediency, but out of conviction and clarity about what must be done for the greater good."Modern democracies, save for a few such as the United Kingdom and Israel, have adopted the convention of having a written constitution. Written constitutions provide the blueprint for a country’s political and economic order, summing up not only the mechanisms of governance, but also defining its accompanying social and legal arrangements.
The first republican constitution in the country, the Malolos Constitution, was copied from the Spanish republican experiment. It is interesting to note that the most contentious issue during the Malolos Congress was the separation of Church and State. In fact, the amendment the original provision by which the Catholic Church would have been established as the country’s state religion was adopted, not by an overwhelming majority as many would assume, but by a mere single vote. Later on, when the Americans came to establish their own republican tradition, in an effort to dislodge the existing political elite with one that would be loyal to the new colonial establishment, a shift from the Spanish republicanism to the ways of American democracy was necessary.
History would teach us that constitutions have evolved and must evolve. Over the years, the Philippines has adopted around six constitutions, not counting the US laws passed before the Commonwealth to govern the so-called Philippine Islands. The 1935 Constitution, in fact, originally provided for a unicameral legislature, only to be later on amended to revert to the pre-Commonwealth bicameral system. The original draft of the 1973 Constitution created a pure parliamentary system with a Prime Minister serving as head of government, leaving the President with mere ceremonial functions. But before the 1973 Constitution could be even fully implemented, a series of constitutional amendments resulted in a shift to a semi-presidential system, with the President serving as an actual chief executive, with the assistance of a Prime Minister responsible for routine affairs of governance.
Critics have opposed moves to change the country’s constitution, citing that there is no need for constitutional reform, and that any attempt to do so would be tantamount to desecrating a sacrosanct constitutional order. But the truth is, constitutions are not cast in stone – for change is a necessary component for democracies to evolve and mature.
Constitutional reform is once again in the news, due to the recent moves in the House of Representatives to push for amendments to the restrictive economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution. These provisions include (1) prohibition for foreigners to own land; (2) exclusion of foreigners to exploit the country’s natural resources; and (3) limitations on the inflow of foreign capital to public utilities.
It is often said the “reactive” political atmosphere that was in place during the drafting of the current Constitution caused the inclusion of these protectionist economic provisions. As a result, foreign corporations can only own properties, exploit natural resources or invest in public utilities, if they have equity ownership within the maximum extent of no more than forty percent. Proponents of the amendments of the economic provisions believe that removing the said restrictions will allow for more foreign direct investments and help further the country’s economic growth.
What is unfortunate though is that, similar to the mistakes made by the early proponents of charter change, constitutional reform is being put forward as a panacea to this country’s many political and economic ills. The inconvenient truth is that while amending the Constitution may contribute to the country’s political and economic health, it is not a guarantee that the existing infirmities in our politics and economy would be resolved instantaneously.
Constitutional change, rather, is a measure of a country’s political and socioeconomic maturity, and not the other way around. In fact, restricting the amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution may do more harm than the good it intends to produce. With this chance to correct the economic restrictions, it would be counterproductive to miss the chance to introduce similar political reforms. After all, is it not that politics continue to be the determining factor in determining and sustaining economic growth?
Certainly, a significant shift in the political system is long overdue. While a bicameral legislature must be retained, especially in a federal system, the time has come to restore the election of Senators by region, similar to the senatorial districts created by the Jones Act. The principle of enhanced local government autonomy as articulated in the Local Government Code could be steered in the direction of progressive political devolution leading towards a federal government set-up, thus allowing local government units a share in national revenues that is more equitable to its devolved functions.
Finally, a semi-parliamentary system could help resolve not only the deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches of government – but more importantly enhance alignment and cooperation between the government and the majority in legislature. With a semi-parliamentary system, our country may finally get the chance to craft, pass and implement more relevant and responsive laws.
Restricting constitutional amendments to the economic provisions would be a huge missed opportunity. Piecemeal amendments, in fact, may do more harm than good, especially when the political arrangements fail to produce the intended economic reforms. After all, one cannot put new wine in old wineskins.
Public opinion, especially during this pandemic, appears to be the single issue that keeps our policymakers from undertaking a full-scale constitutional reform. But in the first place, they should understand that political change, as well as the fear of the uncertain, has always been disruptive and divisive. Not everyone can be convinced of the merits of constitutional change, nor can we all unanimously agree on every detail.
The fact remains that the Constitution itself provides for the manner of constitutional amendment or revision. Therefore, pushing for changes in the country’s fundamental law would be far from being antithetical to both the Constitution and democracy itself. Resisting the fact that constitutions can change and democracies can evolve is in fact an even greater threat to democracy. Our legislators must know that at times political decisions must be made, not out of convenience or expediency, but out of conviction and clarity about what must be done for the greater good.