PART V
In Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, it was stated that:
“Two heads are better than one.”
“Two heads are better than one, not because either is
infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the
same direction.” The proverb reflects the intuition that people working together in groups, communicating freely and sharing their confidence and judgements are more likely to come to a correct decision than they would if working alone. It is illustrates that sourcing ideas from each other spawns a better chance of coming up with a better strategy to overcome obstacles and achieve common goals.
A compendious review of constitutional references reveal that a Constitution is the foundation that supports everything that creates a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that would put fundamental rights at risk. Constitution-making is different from ordinary law-making as it deals with more fundamental questions than most forms of law such as statutory law, common law, treaties, or administrative regulations, which are made to conform with the constitution and in pursuance thereof.
As the nation’s supreme law, the Constitution is the parent law. It codifies the core values and goals of the people to establish justice, insure domestic peace and tranquility, provide for common defense and security, promote the common welfare, and secure the blessings of democracy and liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
A constitution defines the branches of government and separates the powers into the legislative branch which makes the law; the executive branch which executes the laws; and the judicial branch which interpret the laws in order to make it difficult for one person, party, or group to get control of the government. Otherwise, as James Madison warned in Federalist #47:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive,
and the judicial in the same hands, whether hereditary, self-
appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the
very definition of tyranny.”Accordingly, enacting or amending a constitution is a central political activity in contemporary times. It is an essential ingredient in the foundation of republics or countries in which opposing forces or influences are balanced during and after a political crisis.
The process of amending or revision of the constitution has been deliberately designed to be difficult to protect the constitution and the principles of the system of government set out by the framers. To prevent arbitrary changes of the constitution, an amendment may be proposed by three-fourths of Congress members from each legislative chamber; or a constitutional convention which can be called by two-thirds of Congress to propose amendment or revision; and a people’s initiative can be put on the ballot for a referendum or actual vote.
Historically, almost every attempt at amending the 1987 Philippine Constitution encountered skepticism because of the impression that they were either a cunning plan or action designed to secure the politicians positions, or a ploy to consolidate their powers and advantages to either prolong their stay in office or extend their term of office.
This probably explain why, according to the Pulse Asia survey on March 2023, forty-five percent 45% of Filipinos were against amending the 1987 Constitution. Of the 45 percent, 31 percent do not see the need for charter change now or at any other time
in the future, while 14 percent are open to it someday.
As reported, 47% have prior awareness of proposals to change the Constitution, while around 53% have not heard, read, or watched any charter change motions before they were surveyed.
On the proposed amendments, 53 percent of the 1,200 respondents are against then proposal to lift the prohibition on foreign ownership of communications companies, 55 percent do not want to lift the prohibition on foreign ownership of utilities like electricity, 57 percent are not in favor of allowing foreign individuals and companies equal ownership in mass media and advertising.
Moreover, 67 percent are against removing limits on shares of stocks in Philippine corporations that may be owned by foreign individuals and companies; 72 percent are against allowing foreign individuals and companies to own residential and industrial lands; and 76 percent are against allowing foreign individuals and companies to utilize Philippine national resources.
Furthermore, 56 percent of respondents are against politically-related proposals to extend the terms of office of national and local elective officials.
As for the mode of amending the Constitution, only 34 percent of the respondents agree with the creation of a constitutional convention.
Adding to the people’s skepticism could be that, as it appears, the Congress resolution RBH6 calling for constitutional convention have not provided ground rules. According to Congressman Rufus Rodriguez, Chairman of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments Congressman Rufus Rodriguez, “It not true that only economic provisions would be tackled with the Resolution of both Houses No.6.”. . “when there’s a constitutional convention, they will have the constituent power to also be able to discuss not only our economic provisions”, “but also political amendments…” Castro in a separate statement… “ in short, it will also be empowered to entertain political amendments…according to the Deputy Minority Leader, France Castro”
The ambigous definition of the mete and bounds to circumscribe the convention spectrum, coupled with the lack of ground rules governing deliberations, leaves the Convention open wide to political considerations and pressures. There is no guarantee that the Convention could be limited to a given set of issues. Without constitutional guidance the Convention could write its own agenda, and possibly influenced by powerful vested interest groups hence, it could go beyond its mandate.
Moreover, no other body including the courts has clear authority over the Convention. The Constitution provided for no authority above the constitutional convention, so it is not clear
that the courts, congress, or the president could intervene if the convention went beyond the language of Congress resolution establishing it.
Thus, the people have become ambivalent, if not losing trust and confidence on government. Generally, the public have likewise become skeptical toward the political leaders who are perceived to protect and perpetuate their parochial, oligarchic and dynastic interests.
In the light of all the foregoing premises, if the nation’s legislators and decision-makers are really determined to pursue constitutional change or reform a government that has been tainted by allegations of corruptions, and upgrade a governance whose reputation have been besmirched by incompetencies and inefficiencies, would it not be timely for the administrators of nation’s affairs to shift to a new paradigm by engaging the citizens in a new reform process?
Government is a social institution composed of extraordinary collection of human persons thinking and interacting for the purpose of meeting their individual objectives and organizational goals. According to the Civil Service Commission, as of June 30, 2022, there are 1,654,575 career civil servants, 195,882 non-career employees, and 642,077 job order/contract staff, or a total of 2,492,734 civil servants working with government.
In addition, there are 316 congressmen, 24 senators, 82 provincial governors, 82 provincial vice-governors, and 820 members of the provincial boards. Moreover, there are 1,489 municipal vice-mayors, 1,489 municipal vice-mayors, and 11,916 municipal councilors; 149 city mayors, 149 city vice-mayors, and 1,270 city councilors. Furthermore, there are 42,929 barangay captains, 336,232 barangay councilors, and 294,007 sangguniang kabataan members, or a total of 394,845 elective officials.
If data are accurate and numbers won’t like, altogether, there are 2,887,579 million government functionaries. This vast reservoir of human resources are endowed individually, jointly or severally with enriched experiences and stock knowledge. They are virtually living libraries from which the advocates of constitutional change may search for valuable informations regarding constitution-making.
By extrapolation, at an average of 5 years experience for each functionary, there are 14,437,895 million years of experience serving as valuable reference for the proponents of constitutional amendments.
Moreover, if every year of experience can be equated with just one idea per civil servant, there are 14,437,895 million ideas available for exploration by the proponents of constitutional reform to source information to make a well-formed decision.
Viewed from the context of the foregoing perspective, would it be possible for the prime movers of constitutional reform to mobi- lize the Civil Service Commission to lead an expansive, in-depth and exhaustive consultation with the entire bureaucracy beginning with the top hierarchy of government from the 33 cabinet secretaries, the 37 heads of agencies, authorities and 219 GOCCs under the Office of the President, down across departments and other branches of governments to survey their views and opinions regarding constitutional change and government reform?
Will it be possible for the advocates of constitution change and government reform to enlist the Department of Local Government to lead a bottoms-up consultation process with the local government units starting at the barangay assemblies to enable the people to openly and freely discuss constitutional questions and issues about the 1987 Constitution and its infirmities to determine if there is an overriding public interest in order to evolve wider agreement on the amendments or revision?
Will it devalue the solons and administrators of the nation’s affairs, to consult other jurisdictions, institutions and entities like heads of business and industry, trade associations, civic and religious leaders, and non-government organizations including the association of generals of the armed forces as “amicus curiae” in an inclusive, participatory and transformational process to engender a consensus around a constitutional framework that is agreeable to all?
If the proponents of constitutional change would really want Filipinos to understand the need for amendments, can they organized a structure for public discourse as a complementary requisite for constitutional deliberation and verification process to generate sufficient information to formulate a well-in formed decision, contrary to the notion that amending the Constitution is the only way of attracting foreign investments in the country.
According to investments experts, attracting foreign investment into the country require a clear coordinated strategy that focus on creating attractive business environment, conferring incentives, developing skilled manpower/workforce, investing in infrastructure and in the capacity of our people through food, education, health, jobs, and social protection.
Along these lines, would it be possible for the advocates of constitutional reform to harnish the Philippine Information Agency as an information and communication relations system to improve interactions, facilitate analysis and diagnostics of the situation, help stakeholders understand the challenges and priorities, stimulate creativity through questions and answers, and help the citizens understand why we do what we do?
Lest I be misunderstood, I am profounding the foregoing questions sans malice. I am not claiming that the propositions aforecited are ex cathedra infallible. Neither I am intending to lecture and much less teach those mandated with the task of changing the constitution, and reforming government, or upgrading governance.
Suffice to say I subscribe to the view that a question is the beginning of education and that curiosity is the start of knowledge. In my inchoate opinion, questions and commentaries help make sure that the government is getting it right and alert it when it is not. Questions help solve problems by providing information that challenges the government assumptions when they are inaccurate, and to help government create a framework for understanding and discovery to resolve conflicts and disagreements.
As we have been taught in law school, democracy is a shared responsibility of the government and the citizens. Questions promotes power-sharing, and help preserve decision-making process and checks and balances.
I confess, there are certain parts of the 1987 Constitution which I do not approve at present, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. Having lived long to the autumn of life, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by insuperable information or overriding considerations, to change opinions even on crucial subjects, I once thought to be right, but found later to be otherwise.
Notwithstanding these sentiments, I agree to maintain the 1987 Constitution in spite of all its defects, thinking that knowing it will enable us to find practical ways and means of correcting and neutralizing its adverse effects. Besides, I am not certain whether the Constitutional Convention will enable us to obtain or make a better Constitution.
Nonetheless, I know that although a constitution is framed to endure, it must go along with the development and progress of the human mind as it becomes more enlightened, as new discoveries social norms and opinions changes with the mores of circumstances, confounded in chaos.
From the context of all the foregoing premises, the only way the proponents of constitutional change can ensure a well-informed decision to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution is to undertake an all-encompassing consultation.
Consultation with stakeholders serves as fundamental mechanism for gathering information, perspectives, expertise and reactions from individuals involved in administering government affairs. It is crucial in ensuring alignment of a plan with the expectations and concerns of the constituencies.
A comprehensive consultation with constituencies generates unique knowledge, insights and expertise which enriches decision-making process. It helps identify emerging issues and challenges which can impact now or in the future on constitutional reform. It helps create a more balanced strategic plan that reflects the collective intelligence of the organization.
As Helen Keller, one of the most well-known and preeminent activist of the late century, who was also a frolic novelist and teacher advocated:
“Alone, we can do so little; together we can do so much.”,
