ChaCha: Shall we dance?

The call for charter change (ChaCha) is not new. In almost every administration, there have been initiatives to amend the Constitution. This clamor for constitutional reform was spurred by three main issues— economic liberalization, federalization, and a shift to a parliamentary system of government.

On the first issue, Article XII, Section 2 limits the owning of capital of foreigners to only 40%. Proponents of ChaCha argue that this protectionist policy prevents investors and multinational companies from investing in the Philippines, resulting in a high rate of unemployment since there are not many local Filipino entrepreneurs that create jobs in the country. Although the utopic view of an economically vibrant Philippines with foreign capitalists providing means of livelihood for the impoverished Juan sounds tempting, there is a flaw in its principle— it encourages Filipinos to be dependent on foreign control. The “employee mentality” is what keeps the lowly wage earner in the rat race. It is worth mentioning that the Philippines is not only replete in natural resources, but also in human talent and skill. It is sad to see how our brightest minds, who have the capacity for innovation and progress, move to other states because they find no incentive in staying in their own. The protectionist policy espoused by the Constitution should spur our government to stand on its own feet.

On the second issue, the focus on imperialist Manila is said to hinder the growth of local government units (LGUs). This dominance, however, is already recognized in the 1987 Constitution, hence the decentralization of power to the LGUs by explicitly granting them the power to, among others, to create its own source of revenue, and create its own laws. In addition to this, RA 7160 was passed to better define these powers. I believe the problem does not lie with the framework, but with the implementation. Proactive efforts should be made to strengthen the capacities of the LGUs. For example, government agencies in cooperation with private sectors could come up with programs that would generate livelihood using the available resources (natural and human) of the LGU.

And lastly, advocates of the Parliamentary form of government criticize how the current presidential system is reduced to a mere popularity contest, and if the president comes from a different political party from the majority of the Congress, how deadlock keeps important laws from being passed. This is a thorny issue as both the parliamentary and presidential forms of government have their merits and demerits. The parliamentary system is prone to the dominance of one party, and the voice of the minority may be drowned out. Political contestation is healthy in a country. I am, thus, of the opinion that it is not the form of government that matters, but the quality of men that one puts in them.

A friend once remarked how the Philippines has so many laws, but most of them are not being followed or enforced. It then leads one to reflect how maybe it is not the dance that is the problem, but where one puts his/her feet. 

LED LIGHTS

Our constitution vested our government to powers to prohibit and regulate private individual's property by law, which is the limit of our liberty given by our constitution. However, there are test whether a certain law is compliant to the mother of laws in our country our constitution. Under the constitution, a law is constitutional if it is vested with public interest and objectives that applies to all, if it is reasonable and does not go against the rights of a person and finally if it is clear and showed all the details of what it is to be followed.

Recently, LTO (Land Transportation Office) passed a memorandum prohibiting the use of LED lights and all other modification not prescribed by the car manufacturers. The purpose is to uphold public safety for the safe use of roads, because LED lights are so bright it tends to blind other motorist. The intention is very good because of the promotion of public safety however; the law may be subjected to the question of constitutionality.

One of the tests is if the law is vested with public with public interest and the objectives will apply to all. It is definitely vested with public interest since it talks about the public safety of our roads however, this may not apply to all since a lot of modern vehicles is already equipped with LED lights straight out of its factory, does this mean that LTO shall confiscate and impound a vehicle that is equipped with the prohibited accessory? If they did, this shall violate the second test which is the reasonable means and that it should not go against the rights of a private individual. With regard to the third test, LTO's memo does not provide clear standards it just bans the use of LED lights and all other modifications thus making it vague.

The constitution is the supreme law and all laws that shall be passed shall abide and jive to it. The LTO should not continue implementing such law that is clearly unconstitutional.

No Need for an Exemption

 No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

- Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution

            The words of the law are not always absolute as behind general rules are exceptions.

            The President of the Philippines is the spokesman of the nation on external affairs. Inherent to this duty is the power to conclude treaties conformably to the rule that no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. However, the records of the Constitutional Commission show that international agreement was not intended to include executive agreement and therefore, can be ratified by the President without Senate concurrence. To my belief, this exemption is detrimental in so far the State is concerned.

           

            The executive agreement privilege of the President is an encroachment to the Doctrine of Checks and Balances. As Justice Cruz explained in his book, the doctrine is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. The Constitution makes no mention of executive agreement as an exemption to the general rule of Senate concurrence for any international agreement. Executive Order No. 459 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos defined Treaties as international agreements entered into by the Philippines which require legislative concurrence after executive ratification. This term may include compacts like conventions, declarations, covenants and acts. Whereas, Executive Agreement is similar to treaties except that they do not require legislative concurrence. Clearly, there is no distinction between the two as both are international agreements except on Legislative concurrence. The records of the Constitutional Commission provide that executive agreements are generally made to implement a treaty already enforced, or to determine the details for the implementation of the treaty. And the sole discretion to determine whether an agreement is just a mere executive one is incumbent to the Department of Foreign Affairs, an executive office. Applying the Doctrine of Checks and Balances, executive agreement must still be scrutinized by the Senate having the prime duty to enact laws necessary for the State. For any international agreement, once signed by the President, forms part of the national law of the land. The Supreme Court explains in Pimentel v. Office of the Secretary that the participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations. By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.

            The President is elected by a majority vote of the people with the confidence that he will lead the nation towards its goals and aspirations. The Constitution provides powers for effective and efficient enforcement of his roles as the Chief Executive of the land. But this must not be construed to be absolute that he can solely bind the whole nation on international relations without the concurrence of the people. In this case, Senate would best represent the people. 

The neglected Article 14 of the Philippine Constitution

One of the things I learned in law school, particularly in my Constitutional Law subject, is that the Philippine Constitution is excessively long compared to other Constitutions from other sovereignties. Our Philippine Constitution compared to others touches on a lot of different subjects which made the document sound like a political speech instead of stating only basic precepts. [1] As said the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land of which all other laws and statutes should adhere to but with certain topics such as sports, love, drugs and even advertising it provided less leeway for legislature to create laws involving those concerns. But with the inclusion of these precepts onto the Constitution should it not be easier to handle concerns regarding those topics as the Constitution already provides the fundamental stance at which these social concerns should be addressed?

                 Article 14 of the Constitution deals with five basic social precepts namely Education, Language, Science and Technology, Arts and Culture and Sports. Again, with the inclusion of these social aspects in the Constitution it should be fundamental on how the country should handle when faced with issues with regards to the said concerns. But with it already fundamental why is there lag time and/or negligence happening when it comes to dealings with this issue. For example in Education, the recent implementation of the K-12 education was applauded but little did people know that the entire world is already on a 12-year basic education system and the Philippines is only behind two countries in implementing this: Djibouti and Angola. [2] Who? In Section 16 of Article 14 under Arts and Culture which in part said that all the country’s historic wealth shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate it’s disposition but then we cannot muster the will to have the Torre de Manila removed in order to respect the monument of our National Hero. Under Section 19 of the same article which deals with Sports says that the State will promote and encourage sports programs which would include training for international competitions. Our government provided a P962M budget for our delegation to the SEA Games which yielded us 6th place overall. Our SEA neighbors for their part gave an equivalent of P14.37B budget for Sports for Thailand and the tiny country of Singapore had P7.2B allotted for their SEAG delegation which help them garner 2^nd and 5^th place respectively. That puts them both ahead of us in the final tally. [3] So much for promoting when we can obviously see that there is a decline in the overall quality of Sports in the Philippines.

                Perhaps it is very timely that this kind of discussion is being made with the 30^th anniversary of the EDSA revolution just around the corner and that this topic revolves around its most important by-product, the 1987 Constitution. There has been a lot of calls for Charter Change and Constitutional Amendments which would allow the re-organization of the government as a whole. If ever that comes to fruition it would also be good to re-evaluate as well some of the precepts put forth in 1987 Constitution which was supposedly included to guide us in dealings with these concerns but with it being neglected it just add length to it which basically negates the fundamental existence of it. If it’s still going to be included then the State should fulfill its duties on promoting the general welfare of these social precepts as it becomes part of their mandate to do so by making it part of the Constitution. If they continue to neglect them then perhaps it should be stricken off it as it only shows how much the 1987 Constitution is failing to provide a better government for the people which is contrary to the idea of the EDSA Revolution which was aimed to end a tyrant regime and in its place a better and improved Government defined by the lengthy 1987 Constitution.              

[1] Philippine Political Law by Isagani Cruz 2014 Ed.

[2] http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2015/06/15/1466151/challenges-basic-education-dealing-k-12  

[3] http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/534198/sports/othersports/philippine-sports-remains-a-pauper-when-it-comes-to-funding

A native language of the 1987 Constitution

A native language of the 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the highest law of the land at present. It contains the superior law which the Filipino people are obliged to conform with. The native language in our country is Tagalog. However, when our Constitution is made, it was produced in English translation only. If the Constitution is for the Filipinos, then why does it not have a Tagalog translation which is our native language?

Senator Loren Legarda proposed that our Constitution should have an Arabic, Spanish and Tagalog version provided under Senate Bill 2862 which she has filed at the Senate. She stated that our Constitution, as the highest law of the land must be understood by ordinary people in his own language and dialect. The proposed bill involves public welfare wherein many Filipinos will benefit if Bill 2862 becomes a law. It is a common knowledge that English is the universal language. But not everyone is able to understand and express themselves in a language that is not his own. Especially, when that language is different from what he has known even before he was born. Bill 2862 is essential to public welfare because the majority class of Filipinos came from unfortunate families who are not capable of acquiring education because of poverty. A tagalog version of our Constitution will be a great help to our fellow countrymen to prevent them from being deprived of their rights just because they are not able to understand the Constitution.

Every state has their own Constitution which their people are bound to follow. It is a right of every citizen to understand his/her rights in order for him/her not to be suppressed of every prerogative he/she may enjoy. We must embrace change that would lead to betterment of our laws. But there is no law if there are no citizens. Therefore, we must conform our laws to the best interest of the public. If the 1987 Constitution is made for the Filipinos, then it must be translated into our native language. 

Constitutional Prohibition: Is it Really needed?

Just recently, we had the issue regarding the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). Which was supposed to be an adjustment to the existing Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), a treaty between the US and the Philippines. There were different views on the matter.

One of the underlying issue regarding the EDCA we should all think about is our constitutional prohibition on foreign military bases in the country.

I think, for now, we should really amend our constitution and remove the so called prohibition. At present, it would be best for our country. It’s the government’s duty to protect our territory from outside forces and we all know that we do not have the military capability to resist any impending foreign attack. We lack the resources and funds to quickly modernize our military. We need the help of foreign nations to enhance our capability. Many nations have offered help and have even donated equipment and funds for it. The US, Japan and Australia are a few who is willing to help.

I do not believe that having the presence of foreign military in our country can easily violate the sovereignty of the Philippines. Ever since our freedom from Spain, the US has been in our country, and they did not deprive us from our independence. But we did not lose their presence even after the 1987 Constitution was ratified. So I see no difference of having permanent or semi-permanent foreign military bases in the country. They have always respected our government and our terms and left the country when they were told to do so. We have the congress to protect our sovereignty by enacting laws and ratifying treaties. They can control what foreign forces can do while in the country, where they can do it, and even let them leave the country if needed.

Right now we really need their help especially with the on-going tensions at the South China Sea. China has been aggressive in confronting countries including ours in the claim over the area. They have harassed our Navy and Coast Guard and even innocent fishermen many times and it is not hard to see how powerless we are. Lately, there is an issue of China deploying missiles in the South China Sea. We could imagine the threat it brings us. The proximity of China’s artificial island to any of our cities would just be a matter of minutes with these kind of attacks.

Removing the constitutional prohibition is the best and most practical solution for now. We should also be thinking realistically and not just ideally.

E=MC2 (Experience= Must Come with Candidate)

 The campaign season has arrived and soon after Election Day will be upon us. Several of the presidential aspirants have been conducting a lot of programs in different provinces in hopes that they would get the vote of that particular place. But while the public listens to each candidate, would they consider experience as a defining factor? And if so does experience play a valuable variable to what a candidate must have as a requisite? And what kind of experience must one have in order to be a candidate? Questions that ponder the minds, even though the front half of the crowd was just nodding for “reasons” and the back half of the crowd does not understand, or perhaps understand, what the candidate was talking about, was just there for the heck of life, It all falls down to the results of the elections.

               In a recent news article Vice-President Jejomar Binay visited Binmaley, Panggasinan and told Pangasinenses that he is the most capable and fit for the job of president, citing his experience as executive and administrator in various offices for more than twenty (20) years. He also belittled opponents Sen. Grace Poe and administration bet Mar Roxas, saying the former could not cite her experience as a mother and the latter his kapalpakan (incompetence) in vying for the presidency. He further made a point in his speech that the experience he was talking about is on the ability to rule or oversee things and not experience from other fields.

            Does experience really play a factor? Does it need to be included in the requisites under the constitution? And what kind of experience is need?

            According to the 1987 Constitution the Qualification for the Executive Department is stated in Article VII (7), Section 2; “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty (40) years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding such election.”  

            The provision does not express the needed experience, however the experience is implies within the age requirement. In the Political Law book of Justice Isagani cruz, the justification with the age requirement is that more maturity was needed for the highest office in the land. It can be assumed that with maturity there is, as well, experience along side with it. Since along the years, as nature and human experience have thought us, a person gains new knowledge or wisdom as he gets older and when maturity steps-in. In the book of Nancy Alder,  Purpose in Life,  adult development and maturity theories include the purpose in life concept, in which maturity emphasizes a clear comprehension of life's purpose, directedness, and intentionality, which contributes to the feeling that life is meaningful.      We can therefore derived that in maturity there is a development of experience and that it is clear and meaningful.

               The only question now is what kind of experience is needed in order to be a President? Does it requirement that a person must have a know-how on how to rule the land? For me, I disagree with what vice President Binay said. Experience should come from every aspect of life and not just the ability to lead or rule over the land. Experience must not only see just one point of view, but must see every view that a human being can possibly see. To add specifics on what constitutes experience in the 1987 constitution would be unfair to those aspirants who really something to offer and contribute for the benefit of the land, and not just a pretty face all smiling and does not contribute a single thing. 

Presidential Character: Constitutional Amendment

Presidential Character: Constitutional Amendment

Recently, Presidential aspirant Grace Poe said that the electorate has the right to know about the health condition of a particular candidate, especially for national elections. She invoked her other presidential aspirants to undergo voluntary drug testing and provide health certificate. However, there was no stipulation from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the health condition so Grace Poe suggested that the poll body should issue a resolution on what constitutes being “physically fit”. [1]

In the case of Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, wherein, Pimentel contested that our Constitution provides only five (5) requirements for being a senator, and that the mandatory drug testing is invalid. In this case, the court held that the mandatory drug testing for public officer is invalid and that it would intrude or add exclusive qualification provided in the Constitution. The right to privacy was invoked with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA No. 9165 requiring mandatory, random, suspiciousness drug testing of students, employees, persons charged before public prosecution and public officers. [2] Since the contested provision applied to public officers was “mandatory” in nature, it is declared invalid because it was contrary to the provision provided in our Constitution.

The proposed challenge of Grace Poe for all candidates aspiring for presidential and vice-presidential candidates to voluntarily undergo drug testing does not negates any constitutional provisions since the proposed challenge is “voluntarily” in nature. However, there is no specific stipulation regarding the health condition of a candidate. I believe that people have the right to know the health conditions of the candidates both in national and local elections, since our government itself, punishes public officers and employees of those involved in illegal drugs; and employers requires medical clearances for employees, and yet we don’t require it for people seeking important positions in public office, in which the nation’s future depends on. [3]

According to our Constitution, “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born Filipino citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such elections.” [4] Our Constitution exclusively provided five (5) qualifications. I think this provision should be amended in order to resolve on what really constitutes being “physically and morally fit” as Grace Poe reiterated. I believe that a president who is physically and morally fit is fit to be a president.

References:

[1] http://www.interaksyon.com/article/124006/poe-ready-to-submit-health-certificate-drug-test-result

[2] http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/november2008/157870.htm

[3] http://business.inquirer.net/200844/is-senator-miriam-physically-fit-to-be-president

[4] http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-vii/

Office of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman is a public office created by the Constitution. It is considered as the activist watchman and the preserver of the integrity of public service.

The Constitution granted the Ombudsman with certain powers such as to investigate on its own. It can also investigate on complaint filed by any person regarding illegal, unjust or improper acts or omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency.

In line with its power to prosecute offenses of public officers, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales is asking the Congress to give the office the power to access bank records. This was prompted when the Supreme Court weakened the Ombudsman powers by ruling that the office can only access the bank records of suspected erring officials when a case has already been filed in court. The Ombudsman believes that if given this additional power, the office would be able fast-track the investigation of cases.

It is true that the Ombudsman is vested with great powers to investigate but this power should also have limitations in order to prevent abuse of power or violation of due process. The granting of power to access bank records of government official can be helpful for the speedy prosecution of corrupt officials even before the case is filed in court. But this power should not be absolute. It can be allowed only when certain elements such as presence of probable cause or suspicious acts is present. One example is when what is declared in Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of a government official or employee is obviously inconsistent to his to extravagant lifestyle.

It is time for the Ombudsman to regain the public trust, which was diminished in the past administrations, by being firm and courageous in prosecuting corrupt officials. The office can only be tough if granted with powers but without unlawful treatment to the suspected erring officials.

Ripe for Federalism

It has been almost twenty nine years since the 1987 Constitution was amended and many are suggesting that it is already time to revise the provisions of the constitution to keep up with time. One of the prominent constitutional issues is the change in the system of government in the Philippines. One contention is the shift to Federalism, which is being sought by some of the running Presidentiables. But what exactly is Federalism and what can it do for our country?

Federalism as defined by Merriam Webster is the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units. [1]Plainly speaking, Federalism will decentralize the central government powers to the local government units (LGUs). This means that the LGUs will have fiscal and legislative autonomy and the freedom to propose & implement projects for their constituents in their respective regions. The central government in turn will focus on the national matters on a broader perspective like foreign policy and military defense. [2]

To change the style of government to Federalism would be beneficial to our archipelagic nation. The budget will be realigned based on the needs of the regions and the LGUs have more leeway on what to implement for their constituents in terms of local policies, industries, social services and tourism development. On the other hand, the Central Government must set a standard on what level of progress the LGUs must follow or else the regions without a strong leader will be left behind and rely on the Central Government for support which defeats the purpose of having  a Federal Government.

Personally, I would like to think that the autonomy that Federalism will boost competition in the regions which will hopefully in the long term decongest Manila and raise the marketability of the provinces to local and foreign investors. Politicians will have to think of projects that will benefit their constituents since the approach will be from the bottom up which will in turn lessen their dependence and reproach in the Central Government for lack of progress in their respective jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Federalism remains to be unseen until the next administration deems that a charter change to shift the style of government is already a viable option.

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federalism

[2] http://www.mb.com.ph/the-pros-and-cons-of-federalism/

The Need for Economic Chacha

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” - George Bernard Shaw

The issue on whether to amend the Constitution has always been raised by both the Senate and House of Representatives through Charter Change. There have been initiatives to amend the 1987 Constitution under every presidential administration. One of the amendments proposed was to change some restrictive economic provisions of the constitution. Even the business sector has shown its support to the Congress to change the economic provisions of the constitution, particularly, the removal of foreign investment restrictions in some industries.

“Much has changed in Asia since the restrictions were placed in the 1987 Constitution,” the businessmen pointed out. The Philippines’ population has more than doubled since 1987, they added. “Amidst this development, the largest economic challenges are high poverty levels, ensuring inclusive growth, and reducing underemployment,” they said. “The Philippine government should maximize the amount of foreign investment generated as a means to drive down unemployment and underemployment levels.” [1]

To determine which economic provisions need amendment in order to attract higher levels of foreign investments, we can turn to the seven foreign chambers of commerce in the Philippines who did us the service of identifying the most critical changes that can accelerate economic growth in the Philippines.  In the very valuable document entitled "Arankada Philippines 2010:  A Business Perspective," these needed amendments were literally handed to us on a silver platter.  On pages 279 to 282 of this document, we read:  "Constitutional restrictions on land ownership and public utilities in place since 1935 are the most formal barriers to foreign participation in the Philippine economy.  Relaxing them would ease the entry of foreign capital needed for further modernization and growth and could increase competition in these sectors, benefiting the entire economy.  Other constitutional restrictions limit foreign investment in advertising, education, media and natural resources." [2]

Unlike in other countries, Philippines have a great difficulty in attracting foreign investors. Amendments in our constitution such as removing of the 60%-40% equity limitations on foreign investors and the control and management exclusively by Filipinos in companies with foreign equities, expanding the role of foreign investors in the exploration, development and exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, and allowing foreigners to own industrial and commercial lands will surely make Philippines viable and attractive country for Foreign Direct Investment. 

These Foreign Direct Investments will create lots of jobs, thus, helping the Philippines eradicate unemployment. It’s not unknown to us that high unemployment rate forces Filipinos to go abroad and leave their loved ones. Also, by allowing these foreign investments, it will provide high quality skills training and provide Filipinos with exposure to higher standards of operation and business systems.

MBC president, Ramon del Rosario  Jr. explains: “ Now is the time to address the restrictive provisions in our economy because we are at what we call a “sweet spot” where there are so many positive things happening in our country. Our economic growth and fiscal stability – all these things are happening in our favour.” [3]

As such, I believe that it’s necessary to amend the economic provisions of constitution. Amendment of these is part of the democratic process.  When the 1987 constitution was constituted, the Philippines had just recovered from the Marcos regime. Twenty-eight years had already passed. Change is inevitable especially the conditions and situation of the society. The laws must adapt to these radical changes. Our constitution, as the supreme law on the land, relies on the State on the duty to provide good quality life to its people. The current leaders must make sure that the Constitution will continue to be a tool for economic opportunities and social justice for the people.

________________________________________________________________________

[1] http://www.manilatimes.net/economic-charter-change-pushed/233050/

[2] http://business.inquirer.net/12037/understanding-the-charter-change-issue

[3]http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/08/24/1361143/amending-constitution#sthash.7zOoj9ED.dpuf

The Coveted Charter Change

Constitutional Reform or Charter Change is the legal process to amend the current law of the land or the 1987 Constitution. As easy as it sounds, it is not in method.

Many of my professors from college until law school say that our laws are outdated and too wordy. Others would say it is a good one but still needs improvement. But as we all have learned, nobody can just alter the Constitution.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is almost 29 years old. The laws were crafted as the product of colonialism, dictatorship and revolution. That makes most of it old and obsolete.

According to our Constitution, amendment is defined as an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution.  Its main purpose is to improve specific provisions of the Constitution.  The changes brought about by amendments will not affect the other provisions of the Constitution.

Amendments may be proposed by the Congress acting as constituent assembly, a Constitutional Convention, and lastly, by people’s initiative. The three steps in effecting amendments and revisions are:  First, the amendments should be proposed by the proper constituent assembly, then these amendments must be submitted and finally, amendments must be ratified.

Through out the years after our freedom from the Marcos Regime, succeeding administrations have tried unsuccessfully to make changes to the Constitution. The Ramos Government was the first to make an attempt to propose a shift from democracy to parliamentary system. It was fondly called Cha-Cha. Second to make an attempt was that of Estrada’s reign. During his time, the word CONCORD was coined. The proposal was different from its predecessor. It was focused on the provisions that will loosen the restrictions on foreign investors. The Arroyo Administration was the third one to try. And just like the first two, it was also a failed attempt though solid efforts were made. It was a combination of the Ramos and Estrada proposals. This time it recommended a unicameral parliamentary and it also tried to focus on the shift of support from midsize businesses.

Who will say no to changes if it were for the betterment of our country? But from the different attempts, all manifested selfish motives of the leaders of their respective administrations. Charter Change is not bad. In fact it can help all of us if it were to improve the weakness and vulnerability of our political system. And I truly believe a shift from Democracy to Parliamentary is what we all are waiting for. For so long we have embraced our current ideologies. It is about time that we try to understand what a parliamentary form of government is.

Every form of government has its own weaknesses and strong points. Democracy for one has the check and balance as its strong point. While Parliamentary gives the government the power to enact laws quickly. In our current government, people vote a person to become the Executive Leader while in a parliament, the legislative comes into vote on whom to appoint as Prime Minister. There is proportional representation in a parliamentary because there is no separation of powers while the same are consolidated in a democratic form of government because there are three branches of the government.

That being said, the Philippines must consider and make their own researches on the advantages and disadvantages of both forms of government. People are used to staying in their comfort zone even it is becoming detrimental. The opposition, fundamentalists, the religious, the conservatives, and the lefties must all unit and set-aside their personal agenda and look into different ways to improve our laws and eventually improve our country. This change is after all, long overdue.