Malcolm Rivera
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has never been amended, despite several attempts to do so. The constitution was developed in reaction to the Marcos regime, and some believe it is too detailed when it should set out general policy and ideology. Proposed changes have included removing term limits and restricting the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. However, there is deep public mistrust of politicians and the political process, and a perception that any amendments could lead to more significant political reforms that could consolidate power in certain personalities.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Reactionary | Developed in reaction to the Marcos regime |
| Detailed | Contains too much detail, rather than general policy and ideology |
| Political dynasties | No limitations on the number of family members in political positions |
| Outdated | No longer applicable to the modern world |
| Restrictive | Restricts foreign investment |
| Restrictive | Restricts foreign private land ownership |
| Restrictive | Restricts foreign equity ownership |
| Public mistrust | 64% of respondents were not in favor of amending the Constitution |
| Public disconnect | A disconnect between the public and the reform effort |
| Public discourse | A need for public discourse on the deficiencies of the Constitution |
| Public distrust | Deep public distrust of politicians and the political process |
| Public knowledge | Lack of public knowledge of the Constitution |
| Power | Attempts to consolidate power and remove term limits |
| Freedom of expression | Potential restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
To restrict foreigners from owning private lands
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines contains provisions that restrict foreign ownership of land. It states that the State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction. While the Constitution encourages private enterprises, it specifies that no franchise, certificate, or authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted to non-citizens. The Constitution also prevents foreign nationals from owning land, exploiting and utilizing natural resources, and owning public utilities.
Some people argue that the Constitution should be amended to allow foreign ownership of land. They believe that this would attract more foreign investment, boost the economy, and create jobs. For example, Kabayan party-list Representative Ron Salo has stated that the Constitution's restrictions on foreign capital hinder economic development and job creation. Salo also points out that there is a lack of employment opportunities in the Philippines, which is causing citizens to leave the country in search of better opportunities.
However, others disagree with amending the Constitution, arguing that existing laws and provisions are already generous to foreigners. For instance, Anakpawis Chairperson Rafael Mariano highlights that Presidential Decree 471 allows foreigners to lease land for 25 years, with the lease contract renewable for another 25 years, totaling 50 years. Additionally, Mariano mentions Republic Act 7652, passed in 1996, which allows foreigners to renew a land lease for an additional 25 years, resulting in a possible total of 75 years of leasing land. Mariano also points out that the Constitution and the Local Government Code have liberal provisions on classifying agricultural land, allowing foreigners to own a significant amount of property.
Some people suggest that instead of amending the Constitution, ordinary legislation should be used to restrict foreigners from owning private lands, as it provides more policy flexibility. While there are differing opinions on whether to amend the 1987 Constitution to restrict foreigners from owning private lands, it is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of any changes to ensure they align with the country's economic and social goals.
Civil Forfeiture: A Violation of the Fourth Amendment
You may want to see also
To ease restrictions on foreign investment
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was drafted to underpin the nation’s transition to democracy. However, critics have argued that certain provisions of the Constitution may need to be updated to better address contemporary challenges, promote economic growth, and enhance governance efficiency.
One of the key areas of contention is the Constitution's restrictions on foreign investment, which some argue hinder economic development and job creation. The Constitution prevents foreign nationals from owning land, exploiting and utilizing natural resources, owning public utilities, and owning more than 40% of the shares of a corporation in crucial sectors such as education and construction. These restrictions are designed to prioritize Filipino citizens and businesses. However, proponents of economic development argue that easing these restrictions will attract more foreign direct investment, which is needed to spur domestic growth and create jobs.
The Philippines has a relatively high labour surplus due to its consistently high birth rate but suffers from widespread underemployment. The lack of employment opportunities has led to many citizens leaving the country in search of better opportunities and a better life. Easing restrictions on foreign investment could help address this issue by encouraging the free flow of capital into the country and paving the way for global competitiveness.
While there have been renewed efforts to relax constitutional restrictions on foreign investments, there is also deep public distrust and questionable necessity of the proposed reforms. Some critics argue that the current economic and social issues are separate from the constitution and that the potential misuse of Charter Change for political gain is a concern. Additionally, it has been noted that existing laws and constitutional provisions are already generous to foreigners, allowing them to lease land for up to 50 years.
Despite these opposing views, the House of Representatives has recently approved proposed changes to investment restrictions, indicating that constitutional reform may be imminent.
Wealth and Freedom: The 13th Amendment's Impact
You may want to see also
To limit political dynasties
The 1987 Constitution in the Philippines should be amended to limit political dynasties. While the Constitution's Article II, Declaration of State Principles and Policies, Section 26, provides that "the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law", it fails to define what cannot be allowed. This has allowed political dynasties to proliferate, with the very people from dominant political families in the legislature blocking every bill to limit their power.
The failure of the framers of the 1987 Constitution to anticipate and regulate the expansion of political dynasties was a serious oversight. It has been left to members of the legislature, many of whom are part of political dynasties, to define and prohibit political dynasties. This has resulted in an epic failure, with political dynasties reigning supreme in provinces, cities and municipalities.
The 1987 Constitution could have regulated political dynasties by declaring what is not allowed. For example, there could be a limit to the number of people from an extended family in political positions at one time, such as only one person from a family at the national level and another at the local level.
The conflict of interest is too high when asking politicians to ban dynasties when they come from one. A constitutional convention (Con-con) could be formed to explore these issues independently and in the best interests of the country.
Amending the Constitution to limit political dynasties is a contentious issue, but it is necessary to set the foundation of a society for the future.
The Power to Amend India's Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
To address public mistrust
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was developed in reaction to the Marcos regime, and while it was intended to embody the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people, it ended up being overly detailed and in need of general policy and ideology updates.
Public mistrust of the government and politicians is a significant issue in the Philippines, and this extends to a deep mistrust of constitutional reform. This is reflected in nationwide surveys conducted in 2018, which showed that 64% of respondents were not in favour of amending the 1987 Constitution. Filipinos' strong bias against politicians proposing changes is a challenge that must be addressed.
The disconnect between the public and the reform effort is a key factor in this mistrust. Many Filipinos may feel that they are better off under the current charter and are averse to taking a chance on something new. A necessary first step in any reform initiative is to help the public understand the need for change through genuine discourse on the deficiencies of the 1987 Constitution and the benefits of proposed revisions. An open and free discussion of constitutional issues could increase the chances of a consensus and foster a deeper appreciation of the Constitution.
The history of the Philippines, including the Marcos dictatorship and the frequent amendments to the 1973 Constitution to maintain power, has contributed to this deep-seated mistrust. Filipinos' fears of a return to dictatorship are not unfounded, and the removal of term limits for certain personalities has been a concern with proposed changes to the 1987 Constitution. Additionally, economic concerns, such as foreign investment restrictions, have sparked worries that amendments could lead to more significant political reforms that may threaten freedoms of expression and assembly.
Anti-Defection Laws: Constitutional Amendment for Political Stability
You may want to see also
To protect freedom of expression and assembly
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines outlines the country's commitment to freedom, justice, equality, and peace, with the Filipino people as sovereign. The constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that no law shall be passed that curtails these freedoms. This is similar to the First Amendment in the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. However, a proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution has sparked concerns about potential threats to freedom of expression and assembly.
On December 7, 2016, President Duterte formed a Consultative Committee to review the 1987 Constitution. This led to the creation of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, which suggested changes to Section 4, Article III. The proposed amendment would add the phrase "responsible exercise" to the section, making it: "No law shall be passed abridging the responsible exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."
Critics argue that adding "responsible exercise" gives the government and law enforcement agencies excessive discretion to restrict freedom of expression and assembly. Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, stated that the amendment "gives those persons or government agencies tasked to execute the law unfettered discretion to restrict freedom of expression and assembly." He added that it "impairs the essence of these rights and cannot meet the standard of legality."
The potential for abuse and the vague nature of the qualifier "responsible exercise" could lead to a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, with individuals and groups self-censoring to avoid legal repercussions. This would defeat the purpose of having a constitutionally protected right to free expression and assembly in the first place. Therefore, amending the 1987 Constitution with this qualifier could indeed threaten these fundamental freedoms rather than protect them.
Amendments: Ensuring Constitution's Relevance and Adaptability
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The 1987 Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the Philippines. It establishes a government that embodies the Filipino people's ideals and aspirations, promoting the common good, conserving and developing the country's patrimony, and securing the blessings of independence and democracy.
The 1987 Constitution has not been amended since its enactment, and there are several provisions that may need to be updated to reflect the current needs and values of the Filipino people. For example, restrictions on foreign investments and ownership may hinder economic growth, and there may be a need to address political dynasties and term limits.
The 1987 Constitution provides three ways for it to be amended:
- Congress can constitute itself as a Constituent Assembly with a three-fourths vote of all its members.
- Congress may call a Constitutional Convention (Con-con) with a two-thirds vote of all its members or submit the question of calling a convention to the electorate with a majority vote.
- At least 12% of all registered voters may sign a petition to propose amendments, known as a People's Initiative.
There is deep public mistrust and a lack of support for amending the 1987 Constitution, with concerns that it could lead to more significant political reforms that consolidate power. There is also a risk that amendments could restrict certain freedoms, such as freedom of expression and assembly.
