Final Activity

First Semester
Local and Regional Governance

Submitted by:
Manzolin, Jayson Romulo
Bachelor in Public Administration 4-4

Submitted to:
Coun. Dindo M. Abueg, MPA
Special Lecturer

February 17, 2024

 On an entitled Glimpses and Gazes written by Severino C. Samonte talks about why there
is a need for charter change. In light of this, the author highlighted the fact that the 1987 Philippine
Constitution is facing opposition from various groups due to its outdated economic provisions and
its inability to adapt to digital times being written 37 years ago. House Speaker Ferdinand Martin
Romualdez announced that lawmakers would propose constitutional amendments next year,
focusing on economic provisions that are currently prohibitive. However, opposition has been
immediate, with Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Minority Leader Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel
III, Senator Cynthia Villar, and Liberal Party President Edcel Lagman all opposing the proposal.
Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers believes that 36 years after the 1987 Constitution's
adoption, the country's highest elected officials should understand the urgent need to revise the
Charter to ensure the Philippines does not lag behind its neighbors. Some groups are pushing for
charter change due to the belief that the 1987 Constitution failed to prohibit political/family
dynasties, maintain honesty and integrity in public service, and take effective measures against
graft and corruption. The proposed new Constitution aims to eliminate political turncoatism and
prevent frequent party changes, particularly during elections. The proposed Charter should include
Section 10 of Article XII (Constitutional Commissions) on political parties from the 1973
Constitution.

Since the 1987 Constitution has remained unaltered for nearly 37 years, it is regarded as
one of the world's most durable constitutions. This is a peculiar feature, since most constitutional
experts will concur that a nation-state's constitution is never perfect or eternal, even while they
can't agree on how long a nation-state's charter should last. But the diseases that might arise in a
constitution during its reign is something that none of these experts would ever dispute. These
refer to clauses in the actual text of the constitution that, despite their initial well-meaning
design, have gradually come to weaken the political order they are supposed to protect. There is
no exemption under the Philippine Constitution. However, a survey conducted last year by Pulse
Asia Research, one of the country's reputable polling companies, revealed that 64% of
participants opposed changing the 1987 Constitution.

What then may be the motivation behind this opposition to charter reform? One
explanation might be that this action has long been perceived as a devious plan to prolong the
presidency of the current president. The University of the Philippines College of Law's Professor
Dante Gatmaytan claims that the basis of this "skepticism is rooted in the Marcos era where the
dictator used constitutional change to duck term limits." Also, President Duterte's political rivals
contend that he cannot be relied upon to honor his pledge to not seek the presidency under a new
charter. Hard-line opponent of Duterte Senator Leila De Lima, who is incarcerated on drug-
related charges, continues by saying that it is challenging to trust an administration that has
already demonstrated its "propensity for abusing power, for allowing impunity to reign, and for
lying repeatedly to the public." The uncertainty surrounding the process of charter change is yet
another reason why Filipinos may be leery of it. Three methods of amending a constitution are
provided by the 1987 Constitution: 1) by a constitutional convention; 2) through Congress acting
as a constituent assembly; and 3) through popular initiative. Any amendment to the national
charter will only be enforceable in all three cases if it is adopted by the electorate in a plebiscite.
The constituent assembly style is preferred by Duterte and his congressional allies because they
consider it to be the more sensible option. His detractors, however, argue that the cost of this
political stunt shouldn't even be a concern considering how important it is to all Filipinos.

Furthermore, proponents of the constitutional convention style do so with the hope that a
body like that would be less obedient to Duterte than the Congress of today appears to be. They
are still very much haunted by the memories of then-President Ferdinand Marcos utilizing his
martial law powers to force through the 1973 Constitution, which in turn enabled his 14-year
dictatorship. Most people agree that these houses of Congress ought to have separate votes. This
is the consensus opinion of the remaining members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. It
makes sense that all of the current senators, legal experts, and former Supreme Court justices
would insist that voting not be done in tandem. The prospect of a constituent assembly for
charter reform raises yet another reason why Filipinos might still be hesitant. Furthermore,
individuals advocating for this paradigm are afflicted by a clear conflict of interest. It is
legitimate, after all, to wonder how Filipinos can expect legislators to enact the reforms that are
required and may affect their ability to retain political power.

Paradoxically, a member of the House of Representatives stated: "Many would view this
as suspect at the very least, even dangerous, and at worst, self-serving, if only the leaders of the
House and Senate will talk about Cha-cha." And the same Pulse Asia survey offers yet another
reasonable explanation for why the majority of Filipinos is opposed to changing the charter. A
significant finding indicates that 75% of participants claimed to know little to nothing about the
1987 Constitution, or "almost none or no knowledge at all." This conclusion presents a serious
issue for constitutional revision. Given the obvious gap that exists between the majority of
Filipinos and the national charter, how can the drafting process be genuinely comprehensive and
inclusive?

Moreover, it is said that during discussions with foreign businesses, President Ferdinand
Marcos Jr. and Speaker Martin Romualdez, his cousin, frequently bring up the economic sections
of the Constitution. "We would like to come to the Philippines, but your Constitution limits our
participation, our equity," is the general opinion expressed by investors. Margarito Teves, the
former finance secretary, and Gerardo Sicat, the chief economist under Marcos Sr. and the first
director-general of NEDA, who has spent his whole life advocating for the loosening of the
economic restrictions, are two more individuals who are open to changing the charter. However,
take notice that the 1936 Public Service Act was amended by a bill that was already enacted by
former president Rodrigo Duterte in March 2022. This effectively creates the conditions for
complete foreign ownership of businesses such as telecommunications, transportation, shipping,
toll roads, transport network vehicles, and railroads without the need to amend the Constitution.

In connection to this, Winnie Monsod, a professor emerit at UP, was another previous
head of the NEDA. She made a strong case, supported by numerous studies, that changing a
nation's constitution is not a requirement for economic growth. "Amending the Constitution may
entail burdensome costs and is neither necessary nor sufficient to attract FDI (foreign direct
investments)," the speaker stated. Furthermore, Monsod brought out the equally convincing point
that prioritizing the resolution of other pressing investment-related barriers comes first.
"Infrastructure, governance, corruption, and ease of doing business" are a few of these concerns.
If we have a rubbish transportation system, for example, where it might take an hour to get from
point A to point B in the same city, how can investors come to the Philippines? Or what happens
if there's an impending power outage that might stop production for years to come? What
happens if there are no fair playing conditions and it is difficult for competition authorities to
lessen the market dominance of particular oligopolies or monopolies? Or if there's a lot of red
tape and corruption? Or what if the law is broken and how it is applied is determined by your
connections or income? We can't expect investors to suddenly pour money in without a nice,
secure corporate environment to prosper in, even if your Constitution allows for 100% foreign
ownership in all industries.

It may also jeopardize our national security to open up certain vital sectors to outsiders,
such as water and power. Be aware that Chinese state-owned enterprises are already involved in
the delivery of power, water, and natural gas in the Philippines, as well as telecommunications.
In the meantime, a sizable portion of our exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea
remains under the authority of the Chinese government. Recently, they even directed strong
lasers at our patrol boats. Lastly, only few Filipinos are considering changing the charter because
of a lot of criticisms that Cha-Cha has received.
 References

[ANALYSIS] Why charter change is needless right now. (2023, March 3). RAPPLER.

https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/why-charter-change-is-needless-right-

now/

Gregorio, X. (2021, January 9). The process of charter change, explained. Philstar.com.

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/01/09/2069298/process-charter-change-

explained

Mendoza, R., & Melchor, M. (2015). Economic Charter Change: Examining the Pros and

Cons. Ateneo School of Government Publications. https://archium.ateneo.edu/asog-

pubs/22/

Mercado, N. A. (2021, January 7). EXPLAINER: The process of Cha-cha and why we should

monitor it. INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1380939/the-process-of-cha-

cha-and-why-you-should-monitor-it