Omar Bennett
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is one of the world's most enduring constitutions, having stood for over three decades without amendment. Despite this, there have been several attempts to change it, with President Duterte issuing Executive Order No. 10 in December 2016 to organise a Consultative Committee on constitutional reform. The 1987 Constitution provides three modes of constitutional amendment: by Congress as a constituent assembly, by a constitutional convention, and by people's initiative. However, there is deep public distrust, skepticism, and opposition to these attempts, with concerns about the questionable necessity of proposed reforms, their potential impact on freedoms of expression and assembly, and the lack of clarity on how to amend the constitution. The time may not be ripe for Charter Change, and Filipinos are reflecting on their national charter and its impact on the country's political economy.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Public opinion | 64% of respondents are not in favour of amending the 1987 Constitution; 74% said it should not be amended at any time |
| Lack of necessity | Investment liberalization laws have not been fully implemented, making Cha-cha premature if not unnecessary |
| Public skepticism | Skepticism rooted in the Marcos era where the dictator used constitutional change to avoid term limits |
| Legal challenges | Legal uncertainties surrounding People's Initiatives and congressional efforts |
| Judicial review | The power of the judiciary (Supreme Court) to interpret the constitution |
| Lack of clarity | Lack of clarity on how to amend the constitution |
| Political reform | Amendments could pave the way for more profound political reforms, reminiscent of the constitutional changes that cemented the dictator's regime |
| Human rights | Amendments are a threat to the freedoms of expression and assembly |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Public distrust, questionable necessity, and legal challenges
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is considered one of the most enduring constitutions globally, having stood for over three decades without any amendments. However, in recent years, there have been renewed efforts to relax constitutional restrictions on foreign investments, which has sparked fears of more profound political reforms. While supporters of constitutional reform argue that it is necessary to transition the Philippines to a federal form of government, there are several reasons why some Filipinos resist these changes and argue that the time is not ripe for Charter Change.
Public Distrust
Public distrust is a significant obstacle to amending the Philippine Constitution. Filipinos are wary of charter reform due to historical events, such as the Marcos era, where constitutional changes were used to consolidate power and evade term limits. There is a deep-rooted scepticism towards the current administration, with concerns about their susceptibility to abusing power, impunity, and lying to the public. Additionally, there is a lack of trust in the process of constitutional reform due to the involvement of vote-buying and disinformation tactics.
Questionable Necessity
The necessity of amending the Constitution is also questionable. Some argue that the proposed investment liberalization laws have not been fully implemented, making constitutional changes premature or unnecessary. The ball is in Congress's court to enact critical economic reforms, and the Constitution intended for Congress to be a forum for meaningful legislative policy. However, it has been underutilized in this regard. The public's skepticism towards the current initiatives and the lack of a felt necessity indicate that there is no constitutional moment for Cha-cha, as it is termed.
Legal Challenges
Legal challenges further complicate the process of amending the Philippine Constitution. The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Constitution and establishing judicial supremacy. In the past, the Court has rejected initiatives for constitutional reform on procedural grounds, such as non-compliance with basic requirements and the distinction between revisions and amendments. Additionally, legal uncertainties surround both the People's Initiative and congressional efforts to amend the Constitution, which provide ammunition for opponents of change to delegitimize the proposals before they reach the electorate.
Empowering India's Rural Governance: The 73rd Amendment Act
You may want to see also
It could pave the way for more profound political reforms
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has stood for over three decades without any amendment. This is quite unusual, as most constitutional scholars agree that national constitutions are generally amended more frequently.
In 2024, President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. endorsed initiatives to relax constitutional restrictions on foreign investments, sparking fears that any amendments could pave the way for more profound political reforms. This is reminiscent of the constitutional changes that his father, Ferdinand Marcos, used to cement his 14-year dictatorial regime.
There is deep public distrust and scepticism towards these initiatives, with a Pulse Asia Research survey finding that 64% of respondents were not in favour of amending the 1987 Constitution. The ICJ has also raised concerns that the proposed amendments could threaten the freedoms of expression and assembly.
The People's Initiative, which was intended to facilitate easier amendment of the Constitution, has stalled due to revelations that it was a well-funded operation traceable to congressional leaders rather than a grassroots effort. There are also legal challenges and questions surrounding the constitutionality of these initiatives, with opponents determined to delegitimize them before they reach the polling booths.
Any amendment to the Constitution must be validly ratified by a majority vote in a plebiscite, and the process for proposing amendments is stringent. Despite this, the House of Representatives has approved proposed changes to investment restrictions, raising concerns about the potential for more significant political reforms.
Eisenhower's Amendments: Constitutional Changes During Presidency
You may want to see also
Lack of clarity on how to go about it
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is considered one of the most enduring constitutions in the world, having stood for over three decades without any amendment. This is despite most constitutional scholars agreeing that a constitution is never infallible and that national constitutions typically remain unamended for only 19 years on average.
One of the reasons for this endurance is the lack of clarity on how to amend it. The 1987 Constitution provides three modes of constitutional amendment: by Congress as a constituent assembly, by a constitutional convention, and by people's initiative. However, there is ambiguity and disagreement surrounding these processes, which has hindered any amendment attempts.
Firstly, there is a question of whether Congress should vote as one body or if the two chambers should vote separately. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pantaleon Alvarez, insists that Congress can vote as one body, while former President and current Speaker, Gloria Arroyo, has filed a resolution inviting the upper chamber to convene as a constituent assembly. This disagreement has caused uncertainty and potential delays in the amendment process.
Secondly, the people's initiative process has faced significant challenges. A People's Initiative spearheaded by Marcos Jr.'s allies was undermined by revelations that it was a well-funded operation built on tactics like vote-buying, rather than a genuine grassroots effort. Additionally, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition related to the People's Initiative, stating that it lacked sufficient enabling law for the proposed amendments. This highlights the legal uncertainties and the difficulty in successfully navigating the people's initiative route for constitutional amendments.
Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity on the specific steps and requirements for each amendment mode. For instance, the 1987 Constitution states that Congress may call a Constitutional Convention by a vote of two-thirds of its members or submit the question of calling a convention to the electorate. However, it is unclear what initiates this process and how it is determined whether a Constitutional Convention is necessary. Similarly, the people's initiative process requires a petition of at least 12% of registered voters, but the specific procedures for initiating and conducting this process are not outlined in the Constitution.
The lack of clarity on how to amend the Philippine Constitution has likely contributed to the enduring nature of the 1987 Constitution. The complexity and ambiguity of the amendment process have made it challenging for any amendment attempts to gain momentum and navigate the legal and procedural hurdles successfully.
Don't Amend the Constitution: Your Vote Counts
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The constitution is already considered one of the most enduring in the world
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is considered one of the most enduring in the world, having stood for over three decades without amendment. This is particularly notable when compared to the average lifespan of a national constitution, which is agreed by scholars to be around 19 years.
The constitution has provided a framework for a republican democratic system in the country since 1987, following the dictatorial regime of Ferdinand Marcos. The Philippines has had three constitutions in total, the first being in 1935 as part of the preparatory process for independence from the US, and the second in 1973, which legitimised Marcos' rule.
The endurance of the 1987 Constitution can be attributed to several factors. One reason could be the lack of clarity in the text itself on how to amend it. The constitution provides three modes of constitutional amendment: by Congress as a constituent assembly, by a constitutional convention, and by people's initiative. However, there has been disagreement over the voting process, with some insisting that the two chambers of Congress should vote separately, while others claim they can vote as one body.
Another reason for the constitution's endurance may be the nation's tradition of judicial review, specifically the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This power, known as "judicial supremacy", allows the judiciary to mediate and determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution.
Despite the constitution's endurance, there have been recent attempts to amend it, particularly to relax constitutional restrictions on foreign investments. These efforts have sparked concerns that they could pave the way for more profound political reforms, reminiscent of the constitutional changes that enabled Marcos' dictatorship. However, deep public distrust, questionable necessity, and legal challenges have hindered these attempts.
The Prohibition Era: Constitutional Amendment Explained
You may want to see also
Amendments could threaten freedom of expression and assembly
The Philippine Constitution of 1987 is considered one of the most enduring constitutions in the world, having stood for over three decades without any amendments. However, in 2024, there were renewed efforts to relax constitutional restrictions on foreign investments, which sparked fears that any amendments could lead to more profound political reforms.
One of the main concerns with the proposed amendments is the potential threat to freedom of expression and assembly. The ICJ (International Commission of Jurists) has stated that the amendments would limit the constitutional protection of these fundamental freedoms to what State authorities deem "reasonable". This limitation gives government agencies the power to restrict freedom of expression and assembly at their discretion, which is incompatible with the Philippines' obligations under international human rights law.
The ICJ urged the removal of the phrase "responsible exercise" as a precondition for the exercise of these freedoms. They argued that this restriction impairs the essence of these rights and cannot meet the standard of legality. Adding this phrase gives unfettered discretion to government agencies to restrict these freedoms, which is unacceptable and a clear threat to the freedoms of expression and assembly.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments have faced deep public distrust and skepticism, with a significant number of Filipinos resisting constitutional reform. There is a prevailing sentiment that the constitution should not be amended, with some citing the history of the Marcos era, where constitutional changes were used to consolidate power. The current proposal is also seen as premature and unnecessary, with investment liberalization laws yet to be fully implemented.
The Philippine Constitution provides three ways to amend it: by Congress as a Constituent Assembly, by a Constitutional Convention, or by a People's Initiative. However, the People's Initiative mode has faced legal challenges due to a lack of enabling law for the proposed amendments. The other modes have also faced opposition, with legal scholars and senators insisting that the two chambers of Congress should vote separately on any proposed amendments.
Women's Suffrage: Constitutional Amendment for Equality
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Philippine Constitution has stood for over three decades without any amendment, which is unusual. Most constitutional scholars agree that a constitution is never infallible and is usually amended within 19 years. The fact that the 1987 Constitution has remained intact suggests that it is working well and doesn't need to be changed.
There is a lack of clarity on how to go about amending the Constitution, and the text itself does not provide clear guidance. This makes it difficult to pursue any amendment process, including a constitutional convention.
There is deep public distrust of any proposed amendments, with 74% saying the Constitution should not be amended at this time. There are also significant legal challenges, as the People's Initiative mode does not have enough enabling law for the proposed revisions or amendments.
Amending the Constitution could pave the way for more profound political reforms that may be detrimental to the country. For example, there are concerns that amendments could limit the constitutional protection of fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly, with the ICJ stating that this would be incompatible with the Philippines' obligations under international human rights law.
