“It’s time the 1987 Charter be revised or amended to update any of its outdated provisions and make the charter in sync with the times.”
Once again, the Senate wants to tackle charter change, Santa Banana!
And this time it will be under neophyte Senator Robin Padilla, chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes.
Recall that movie actor Robin Padilla, who topped the 2022 senatorial elections, is an advocate for Federalism, which would require a new structure of government under the Constitution.
When the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments met last week, discussions centered on three points:
First, is there a need to amend the 1987 Constitution?
Second, what means will be appropriate for revising or amending the 1987 Constitution?
And third, for the amendment or revision of the 1987 Constitution, how would members of the Senate and House of Representatives meet—jointly or separately?
On the need to update the 1987 Constitution, there is no argument that “it’s about time,” since there is no Constitution in the world that’s written in stone that cannot be amended or revised.
Besides, there had been many changes globally in the last 35 years since the 1987 Constitution that the charter must now be updated.
But, before the issue of amending and revising the 1987 Constitution, both chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives must first agree on whether it will jointly or separately vote on it, considering that the House has over 300 members and the Senate only 24 members.
My gulay, aside from this, there is the problem of how to go about it. Will it be by means of a constituent assembly or what modality.
This is where the problem begins because the Senate would insist that the modality would be separate, while the House would want it jointly.
I will not go into what amendments are needed, since it would need a separate column. But, it’s time the 1987 charter be revised or amended to update any of its outdated provisions and make the charter in sync with the times.
Once again, the existence of the Presidential Commission on Good Government and its relevance after 36 years has come up before the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
The PCGG was created by then President Cory Aquino under Executive Order 1 to run after the alleged ill-gotten and hidden wealth of Marcos and the cronies.
A newspaper headline rightfully called the PCGG’s existence a paradox because of its continued existence under the presidency of Bongbong Marcos.
But, let us decide whether PCGG’s existence is justified after 36 years of existence.
First of all, what has PCGG done after 36 years? Is it still relevant? Considering the need for right-sizing the bureaucracy, cannot or should not other agencies, like the Department of Justice or the Solicitor General’s office take PCGG’s place ?
Santa Banana, to me, these are the questions that urgently must be answered!
The PCGG has on record recovered some P265 billion as of December 2021.
My gulay, that amount for an existence of 36 years?
The PCGG is reportedly still recovering P125 billion more.
The PCGG’s function of recovering the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their cronies has been expanded by the Supreme Court, my gulay, after graft and corruption in government.
But, Santa Banana, isn’t that the function of other agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman, DOJ, and OSG?
As far as I am concerned, the PCGG has outlived its usefulness.
That recovered amount after 36 years in existence, does it justify its continued existence?
It would do well for the House Justice Committee to know how much the PCGG has spent for salaries of its commissioners and how much they have spent in their many trips abroad.
Speaking of whether or not the PCGG is still relevant or not. I repeat, I believe it has outlived its usefulness. I have said several times before that it should already be abolished.
There are government agencies that can easily take over the functions of the PCGG like the DOJ and OSG.
What is important is that there is an urgent need to rightsize the bureaucracy.
My gulay, aside from the urgent need to rightsize the bureaucracy, it would do well for the House Justice Committee to take note that there is the question of double compensation on the part of the PCGG commissioners who have taken over as nominees and board members of the many sequestered corporations.
Isn’t there a violation of the civil service rules against double compensation on the part of government officials?
To me, this double compensation is graft and corruption in government.
I can agree with the observation of House leaders that the PCGG had indeed outlived its usefulness after 36 years of existence.
Considering the fact that the incumbent President is Marcos Jr., I believe it is time for the PCGG to be abolished. Nobody in his right mind can justify its continued existence.
With the onslaught of typhoons and floods that have caused the suspension of classes that have hardly begun, the Marcos administration must realize the need for the Department of Disaster Resilience.
Yes, my gulay, we have the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, but that’s only an ad hoc body that goes to work during disasters and calamities.
What this country urgently needs is a permanent department like a DDR which not only handles rescue, relief, and rehabilitation, but is a department that focuses and strategizes areas that are vulnerable in a calamity and disaster-prone country like the Philippines.
Oh yes, a department that can build evacuation centers with all its amenities, instead of using school buildings like in the recent calamitous floods of Florita.
Santa Banana, we have had that magnitude 7 earthquake in Abra that jolted Ilocandia, much of the landlocked province as well as Ilocos Sur and Ilocos Norte where heritage buildings and other landmarks collapsed.
And still, Malacanang procrastinates in prioritizing a DDR, and instead President Marcos Jr. says he preferred the creation of an agency instead of a department. All right, let’s have that agency, but we have to be quick because we need it like yesterday.
My gulay, Mister President, why all the procrastination when the country is already being devastated with floods.
To think that Florita is just a tropical storm. There will be more cyclones and real typhoons to come and more disasters and calamities that will hit us, a disaster-prone country like the Philippines.
Mister President, we need permanent evacuation centers with all the amenities, instead of using school buildings and government buildings.
We have seen how disasters and calamities like cyclones and typhoons can cause loss of lives, devastate billions of pesos worth of infrastructure, livelihood, agriculture.
Why all the procrastination, Mister President?
Whether it’s a department or just an agency under the Office of the President, I cannot overemphasize the critical and urgent need for a permanent agency to handle all the disaster and calamities that hit the country.
It is well and good that tycoon Manuel V. Pangilinan has deferred the finalization of the agreement with the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN until all the issues brought about by the National Telecommunications Commission and Congress have been threshed out.
The agreement between Pangilinan’s TV-5 and the ABS-CBN is basically a buyout of 35 percent of the shares of TV-5 by ABS-CBN, but the NTC has raised some questions that must be answered.
Does the deal between TV-5 and ABS-CBN need the consent of NTC and Congress because TV-5 has a franchise and ABS-CBN does not?
Another question in this issue raised by some House leaders is the question of “Philippine Depository Receipts“ where foreigners are allowed to buy into the interests of mass media.
There is also the question on how much ABS-CBN owed the government in taxes.
Note that in the deal between TV-5 and ABS-CBN, free-TV will now be allowed for ABS-CBN which was discontinued when Congress did not renew the 25 year franchise of ABS-CBN.
The question is, can TV-5 and ABS-CBN answer all these issues to the satisfaction of NTC and Congress?
As far as I am concerned, if there is competition in mass media and entertainment, the better for the public.