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Many of my professors from college until law school say that our laws are outdated and too wordy.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.