Final output in

Philippines History

Submitted by:
Julio P. Orquita Jr.
BSED- MATHEMATICS

Submitted to:

Maria Golda A. Rodelas

Subject Facilitator
Charter change in the Philippines

Constitutional reform in the Philippines, also known as charter change (colloquially

cha-cha),[1] refers to the political and legal processes needed to amend the current
1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Under the common interpretation of the
Constitution, amendments can be proposed by one of three methods: a People's
Initiative, a Constituent Assembly or a Constitutional Convention.

A fourth method, by both houses passing a joint concurrent resolution with a

supermajority of at least 75%, has been proposed by House Speaker Feliciano
Belmonte, Jr. who subsequently submitted to the House of Representatives
"Resolution of Both Houses No. 1".[5] This "simple legislation as the means to
amend" would only require approval by both Houses voting separately.[6] All
proposed amendment methods must be ratified by a majority vote in a national
referendum.[6]

While no amendment to the 1987 Constitution has succeeded, there have been several
high-profile attempts. None reached the ratification by referendum stage.

Proposed amendments or revision to the 1987 Constitution

Ramos administration

The first attempt to amend the 1987 Constitution was under President Fidel Ramos.
Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a parliamentary
system and the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes
will bring more accountability, continuity, and responsibility to the "gridlock"-prone
Philippine version of presidential bicameral system. Some politically active religious
groups, opposition politicians, business tycoons and left-wing organizations opposed
the process that was supposed to lead to a national referendum. Critics argued that the
proposed constitutional changes for one would benefit the incumbent, Ramos. On
September 21, 1997, a church-organized rally brought in an estimated half a million
people to Rizal Park.[19]

Furthermore, on September 23, 1997, the advocates suffered a setback when the
Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, narrowly dismissed a petition
filed by the People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA),
which sought to amend the Constitution through a signature campaign or People's
Initiative. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the People's
Initiative mode does not have enough enabling law for the proposed revisions or
amendments in the 1987 constitution. Had the petition been successful, a national
plebiscite would have been held for proposed changes.

Estrada administration

Under President Joseph Estrada, there was a similar attempt to change the 1987
constitution. The process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for
Development. Unlike Constitutional Reform under Ramos and Arroyo the
CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would amend only the restrictive
economic provisions of the constitution that are considered to impede the entry of
more foreign investments in the Philippines.

There were, once again, objections from opposition politicians, religious sects and
left-wing organizations based on diverse arguments such as national patrimony and
the proposed constitutional changes would be self-serving. Again, the government
was accused of pushing constitutional reform for its own vested interests.

Arroyo administration

During the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, multiple attempts were made
to change the 1987 Constitution. Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 453 in August
2005 to create the Consultative Commission,[20] headed by Dr. José Abueva. After
holding consultations with different sectors of society, the commission proposed
revisions to the 1987 constitution relating to a shift to a unicameral parliamentary
form of government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national
government, and more empowerment of local governments through a transition to a
parliamentary-federal government system.[21] While constitutional reform and
"opening up" of the Philippine economy were supported by the Philippine Chamber of
Commerce and Industry and the Employers Confederation of the Philippines, these
were opposed by the Makati Business Club.[23]

Sigaw ng Bayan initiative

Sigaw ng Bayan (Cry of the People), led by former Consultative Commission member
Atty. Raul Lambino, and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines campaigned in
2005–2006 for the amendments proposed by the Consultative Commission. Sigaw
ng Bayan aimed to gather enough signatures to call for a plebiscite on the proposed
constitutional changes by a People's Initiative.

Religious, business, and political groups, and coalitions such as One Voice, opposed
the proposed amendments, citing untimeliness and contending that the incumbent
President and her allies would directly benefit from the proposed changes by
extending the President's term of office.[24] The Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) called the cha-cha process "anti-masses".

On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban,
by a vote of 8–7, rejected Sigaw ng Bayan's initiative on two grounds:

The initiative failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a people's initiative.
The initiative proposed revisions and not amendments. Under the 1987 Constitution, a
people's initiative cannot introduce constitutional revisions but only amendments. The
Court held that changing the form of government, from presidential to parliamentary,
or abolishing a house of Congress, such as the Senate, are revisions, which cannot be
done by a people's initiative.
In November 2006, the Supreme Court denied with finality Sigaw ng Bayan's motions
for reconsideration of the court's October 25, 2006, decision.[25]

Constituent Assembly under De Venecia

Main article: Constituent Assembly (Philippines)

In December 2006, House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. attempted to push for the
constitutional change process by convening the House of Representatives of the
Philippines and the Senate of the Philippines into a Constituent Assembly, or "con-
ass," one of the three modes by which the 1987 Constitution could be amended.

Former President Joseph Estrada; left-wing organizations such as BAYAN; Brother

Mike Velarde of El Shaddai; Brother Eddie Villanueva of Jesus is Lord Movement;
Butch Valdes of Philippines LaRouche Youth Movement; Jose Maria Sison (who is
currently in exile, now dead) of CPP and other groups and personalities called on their
followers to go home that will culminate in a major "eating rally"[clarification
needed] on December 17, 2006.[26][27] A few days before the planned rally, House
Speaker De Venecia retreated on the constituent assembly (con-ass) mode to give way
for constitutional reform via constitutional convention (con-con): the only mode of
constitutional reform that many anti-constitutional reform groups said they will
support. Speaker De Venecia "challenged" everyone to support his new proposal for
the election of constitutional convention delegates to be held on the same day as the
May 2007 local elections. Despite the concessions made by Speaker De Venecia,
opponents ignored his new proposal and still pushed through with the rally of less
than an estimated 15,000 protesters.[28] In the "eating rally," the religious leaders
called on the whole nation to embrace "electric post," "face removal," and "character
change" instead of systematic changes such as constitutional reform.[clarification
needed][28]

Constituent Assembly under Nograles-Pimentel

Monico O. Puentevella on May 7, 2008, filed House Concurrent Resolution No. 15,
which supported Senate Resolution No. 10 backed by 16 senators. Unlike the Nene
Pimentel Senate Resolution, Puentevella included the option of holding a
constitutional convention but excluded a People's Initiative.[29] Prospero Nograles, a
self-proclaimed advocate of federalism, announced on May 1, 2008: "This federal
system of government is close to my heart as a Mindanaoan leader and I'm sure most
of the leaders in Mindanao will agree that we have long clamored for it. Senate
Resolution 10 is a pleasant surprise because the Senate has a long history of opposing
any move to amend the Constitution."[30] The joint Senate resolution called for the
creation of 11 federal states in the country by convening of Congress "into a
constituent assembly for the purpose of revising the Constitution to establish a federal
system of government."

Arroyo stated to visiting Swiss President Pascal Couchepin: "We advocate federalism
as a way to ensure long-lasting peace in Mindanao."[31] Press Secretary Jesus
Dureza, on August 12, 2008, stated, "It's all systems go for Charter change. We are
supporting Senate Joint Resolution No. 10. Naughty insinuations that she [Arroyo]
was going for Cha-cha [Charter change] because she wants to extend her term in
office prompted the President to make her position clear. She is calling for a
constitutional amendment... in order to bring about the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.
An opportunity should be given to the whole country to avail of the reform effects of
federalism. The sentiment of many people there is to give local officials more
authority in order to perform better. And the federal set-up is the way forward to this.
The President has approved the way forward and there's no question about it. If she
has the political will to do it she has to muster political will in spite of all these
noises."

Representative Victor Ortega of La Union, chairman of the House committee on

constitutional amendments, said that his survey showed that 115 (94.26%) of the 123
solons were in favor of amending the Constitution. However, opposition and leftist
lawmakers questioned the results and intent of Ortega's survey and called Arroyo's
proposal a ploy for her "perpetuation in power" and the removal of protectionist
provisions in the Charter. The survey showed 62 respondents favored constitutional
reform by a constitutional assembly, and 89 respondents were in favor of shifting to a
parliamentary form of government, compared to 56 who voted for federalism, and 70
respondents preferred to amend the Constitution after the 2010 presidential elections.
Members of the committee on constitutional amendments would vote by the end
August on whether to amend the Constitution.[33] However, nothing came out from
the proposal.

Aquino III administration

Belmonte's joint resolution on economic provisions

Under President Benigno Aquino III several proposals were put forth by different
members of Congress. Senate Resolution No. 10, by Senator Pimentel, called for
constitutional reform to convert to a federal republic. Cagayan de Oro Representative
Rufus Rodriguez and Abante Mindanao (ABAMIN) party-list Representative Maximo
Rodriguez Jr. filed a bill pushing for a federal and parliamentary government, in
addition to economic liberalization.[34]

Speaker of the House, Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., filed Resolution of Both Houses No. 1,
pushing for economic liberalization.[35] The resolution would add five words to
seven economic provisions in the Constitution: "unless otherwise provided by law."[6]
The seven provisions are Section 2, Art. XII on exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources; Section 3, Art. XII on alienable lands on the public
domain; Section 7, Art. XII on conveyance of private lands; Section 10, Art. XII on
reserved investments; Section 11, Art. XII on grant of franchises, certificates, or any
other forms of authorization for the operation of public entity; Section 4 (2), Art. XIV
on ownership of educational institutions; and Section 11 (1 and 2), Art. XVI on
ownership and management of mass media and on the policy for engagement in the
advertising industry.[36] Supporting economic liberalism are business groups such as
the Foundation for Economic Freedom, Arangkada Philippines, and the Makati
Business Club.[37] Governmental agencies like the Department of Foreign Affairs
and the Department of Trade and Industry also are calling for economic liberalization.
[38] The resolution made it through two readings in the House of Representatives but
did not have a third reading.

Constitutional reform can be a vital tool to promote good governance by changing the
rules to promote more accountability, transparency, participation, and predictability.

A constitution defines and protects citizens' rights from governmental abuse. It also
limits and balances government powers vis-à-vis other players and institutions,
thereby safeguarding minority rights. The constitution is the touchstone for the
legality of all other laws and the basis for reviewing executive and legislative actions.
It has huge impact on the economy and could help our nation be one of the top
country the change could open up new possibilities that would help the nation become
a productive country but we should also consider the effect of this in the future of the
country.