Omar Bennett
The Philippines has had four constitutions throughout its history: the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the 1986 Freedom Constitution, and the current 1987 Constitution. While there have been several attempts to amend the 1987 Constitution, none have succeeded as they have not reached the ratification by referendum stage. The first attempt to amend the 1987 Constitution was under President Fidel Ramos, who proposed a shift to a senatorial system and the lifting of term limits for public officials. Other proposed amendments include changes to economic provisions, such as removing the 40% foreign ownership limit for public utilities, education, and advertising firms. Constitutional reform in the Philippines, colloquially known as cha-cha, can be proposed by one of three methods: a people's initiative, a constituent assembly, or a constitutional convention. All proposed amendments must be ratified by a majority vote in a national referendum.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Current Constitution | 1987 Constitution |
| Previous Constitutions | 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, 1973 Constitution, 1986 Freedom Constitution, 1899 Malolos Constitution |
| Methods of Amendment | People's Initiative, Constituent Assembly, Constitutional Convention, Joint Concurrent Resolution |
| Amendment Requirements | Three-fourths vote of Congress, petition of 12% of registered voters, ratification by majority vote in a national referendum |
| Notable Proposed Amendments | Lifting of term limits for public officials, removal of 40% foreign ownership limit for public utilities, shift to senatorial system |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Presidential term limits
The Philippines has been governed by four constitutions throughout its history: the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the 1986 Freedom Constitution, and the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution provided for a unicameral legislature composed of a president and vice president elected for a six-year term without re-election. However, in 1940, this was amended to limit a president to serving no more than two four-year terms.
The 1987 Constitution, which is the current constitution, states that the president "shall not be eligible for any reelection" and that "no person who has succeeded as president and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time." This means that the president of the Philippines is limited to serving a single six-year term and cannot be re-elected.
There have been several attempts to amend the 1987 Constitution, including proposals to lift the term limits of public officials. In 2005–2006, Sigaw ng Bayan campaigned for amendments proposed by the Consultative Commission, which included extending the president's term of office. However, religious, business, and political groups opposed these proposed amendments, arguing that they would benefit the incumbent president and her allies. The Supreme Court rejected Sigaw ng Bayan's initiative on procedural grounds.
In December 2006, House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. attempted to push for constitutional change by convening the House of Representatives and the Senate into a Constituent Assembly, one of the three modes by which the 1987 Constitution can be amended. However, he later retreated and instead supported constitutional reform via a constitutional convention, the only mode of reform favoured by anti-constitutional reform groups.
In March 2024, the Philippine House Committee on Constitutional Amendments approved "Resolution of Both Houses No. 7" (RBH 7), which amends economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution. While RBH 7 does not address presidential term limits, it demonstrates that the process for amending the constitution is active and ongoing.
The Constitution expressly grants the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, allowing it to declare laws, treaties, and even constitutional provisions unconstitutional. This power could potentially be used to challenge the interpretation of presidential term limits, as seen in the case of Joseph Estrada, who was deposed in 2001 and ran for the presidency again in 2010, creating ambiguity around whether the term limit applies only to an incumbent president or to any person who has held the office.
Amendments and Human Rights: Exploring Constitutional Similarities
You may want to see also
Foreign ownership of public utilities
The Philippines has a long history of constitutional reform attempts, with the 1987 Constitution being the most recent. In March 2024, the Philippine House Committee on Constitutional Amendments approved "Resolution of Both Houses No. 7", which removes the 40% foreign ownership limit for public utilities, education, and advertising firms. This amendment, known as the economic charter change (cha-cha), is a significant shift in the country's economic policies.
The Constitution of the Philippines previously restricted foreign ownership of public utilities to a maximum of 40%. This restriction was put in place to prevent foreigners from controlling sectors of public interest, such as the distribution and transmission of electricity and petroleum products. The term "public utility" was not initially defined in the 1987 Constitution or other laws, leading to varying interpretations.
Republic Act No. 11659, which amends the Public Service Act, provides a clear definition of "public utility". It states that a public utility refers to a public service that operates, manages, or controls for public use specific sectors such as electricity and petroleum. This amendment limits the coverage of public utilities to sectors that will remain subject to the 40% foreign equity ownership limit.
However, with the recent changes, key industries such as telecommunications, railways, expressways, airports, and shipping will now be considered public services rather than public utilities. This reclassification allows 100% foreign ownership in these sectors. The government aims to stimulate the economy, promote competition, enhance the ease of doing business, and generate more jobs through these amendments.
While foreign ownership restrictions in certain sectors remain, the Philippines is taking steps towards economic reform and improving business competitiveness. The Public Service Act includes safeguards, such as restrictions on foreign state-owned enterprises owning capital stock in critical infrastructure and a reciprocal clause that prevents foreign nationals from owning a majority share unless their country accords the same to the Philippines. These measures balance the country's economic goals while maintaining control over vital industries.
Constitution Before the Nineteenth Amendment: The Original Text
You may want to see also
The role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has exclusive powers to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. The Supreme Court also has administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, who are appointed by the President from a list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.
The Supreme Court is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate rules for this purpose. When the President is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote.
The Supreme Court has played a role in several attempts to amend the 1987 Constitution. In 1997, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, dismissed a petition filed by the People's Initiative for Reform, dealing a blow to President Fidel Ramos' attempt to amend the Constitution. In 2006, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, rejected Sigaw ng Bayan's initiative to amend the Constitution on the grounds that it failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people's initiative. The Supreme Court's decision was upheld in November 2006, when it denied Sigaw ng Bayan's motions for reconsideration.
The Due Process Amendment: Understanding Your Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The national flag
The Philippine flag has a unique feature where it can indicate a state of war if displayed with the red side on top, achieved by flipping the flag upside down. The white triangle at the hoist represents liberty, equality, and fraternity, with the three stars at each vertex representing the country's three main island groups: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The golden-yellow sun with eight primary rays symbolises the original eight provinces that rebelled against the Spanish during the 1896 Philippine Revolution.
There have been proposals to amend the design of the flag. In 1987, a congressman from Tawi-Tawi proposed adding a ninth ray to the sun to represent "Muslim participation" in the Philippine Revolution. This proposal was repeated by a senator in 1988, and in 2008, another senator filed a bill to amend the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines to include this change.
The Philippine government has also introduced legislation to strengthen the rules on the proper use and display of the flag, including the mandatory singing of the national anthem during flag ceremonies in government offices and educational institutions. The bill also outlines the design of the flag and specifies when and where it should be displayed, such as in front of important buildings and memorials, and on all seafaring vessels of Philippine registry. The bill prescribes the respectful treatment of worn-out flags and their proper disposal, as well as the solemn handling and folding of the flag after it is lowered.
Amendments: Expanding Our Constitutional Rights
You may want to see also
The retirement age of the judiciary
The Philippines has had a number of constitutions throughout its history, with the current one being implemented in 1987. One notable amendment to a previous constitution, the 1973 Constitution, occurred in 1980, when the retirement age of the members of the judiciary was extended to 70 years.
In recent years, there have been discussions and proposals surrounding the retirement of judges and justices in the Philippines. For example, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. of the Supreme Court submitted a letter requesting the benefits of A.C. No. 58-2003 in computing his longevity pay. Justice Villarama was due to complete 28 years, 2 months and 8 days of judicial service by January 6, 2016, and would reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 on April 14, 2016.
In another instance, Alicia Austria-Martinez, a former member of the Supreme Court, requested that the tacking of leave credits under A.C. No. 58-2003 be applied in her favour. The Court approved this request with the qualification that the ruling be pro hac vice.
The topic of retirement for members of the judiciary in the Philippines is an important issue that has been addressed through amendments to the constitution and specific laws, such as Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 5095 and Republic Act No. 9946. These laws provide guidelines for both compulsory and optional retirement, with the aim of recognising and rewarding long and loyal service to the public.
Amendment History: The 16th's Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The current constitution of the Philippines is the 1987 Constitution.
Some of the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution include a shift to a senatorial system, the lifting of term limits for public officials, and removing the 40% foreign ownership limit for public utilities, education, and advertising firms.
Amendments to the 1987 Constitution can be proposed by one of three methods: a people's initiative, a constituent assembly, or a constitutional convention.
To amend the 1987 Constitution, a proposal must first be made by either a three-fourths vote of all Members of Congress (Constituent Assembly), a Constitutional Convention, or a petition of at least 12% of all registered voters and at least 3% of registered voters within each district (People's Initiative). Once a proposal is made, it must be ratified by a majority vote in a national referendum.
No, there have been several high-profile attempts but none have succeeded as none have reached the ratification by referendum stage.
