DANCING THE CHA-CHA TO THE BEAT OF THE WALTZ
The life of a state is more dependent on the vibrance of its economy than its politics.
From 1791 to 1992, or a period of 201 years, the US Constitution was amended only 27 times. That’s an average of one amendment for every eight years in the nation’s life. To date, the United States has been an independent democratic state for over 240 years. And yet, over these 24 decades, it has changed or revised its Constitution only 27 times.
The Philippines, on the other hand, first declared independence in 1898 or 120 years ago. But, realistically, it has been an “independent” democratic republic only since 1946 or in the last 72 years. And over this period, we have amended and revised — if not almost completely overhauled — our Constitution twice: in 1973, and in 1987. If we count the 1935 Constitution made during the Commonwealth period, then we would have had three constitutions in 83 years.
Of course, this is not to say that we have mistakenly tinkered with our charter — our most basic of the law of the land — once too often. On the other hand, perhaps we have been taking too much liberty in changing or revising the law — without the benefit of more comprehensive analysis and study. Or, maybe we have let partisan politics and self-interest get the better of us.
Charter change may be inevitable in a vibrant and dynamic democracy, over the course of a nation’s life. However, as we now go for another round of “Cha-cha,” maybe it’s time we dance it to the much slower beat of the Waltz or the Foxtrot. That is, if most of us can actually be convinced that another change is absolutely necessary.
Over lunch last Monday with former Finance Secretary Gary Teves and a few other friends, Gary brought up the possibility of making changes in “phases,” with primary focus on reviewing the limiting or restrictive economic provisions of the charter and revising them over time, through an approach or manner allowed by law. In short, study everything well first before making changes.
It is in this line that I now bring up the US Constitution, where amendments were made over a long period, but without necessarily overhauling the entire charter. Changes were made one amendment at a time. To date, 27 amendments have been ratified, but only 25 are still functioning. Two amendments, one on declaring prohibition in 1919 and another on lifting it in 1933, are no longer in effect.
Incidentally, the 27th Amendment, on setting parameters for congressional compensation, was said to have been first proposed in 1792, but did not achieve final ratification until 200 years after or in 1992. The 27th Amendment is the last and most recent change to the US Constitution to date. It prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.
Interestingly, if one goes over all the 27 amendments, it seems only one was related to Economics: the 16th Amendment ratified in 1913 regarding the collection of Federal Income Tax. The 16th Amendment of 1913 provided for the first-ever Federal income tax in the US as it stated that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
All other amendments were related more to the Bill of Rights; the rights of former slaves; the right to vote for women; and, government bureaucracy, among others. In fact, the two-term limit on the US President was ratified only in 1951, as the 22nd Amendment. This is precisely the reason why Franklin Roosevelt managed to serve three terms and not just two, from 1933 to 1945.
And, in making amendments, there are only two methods allowed: US Congress can pass a bill setting out a proposed amendment by a vote of two-thirds in each body; or, a constitutional convention can be convened by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures, which will propose one or more amendments. To date, however, only the first method has been used to introduce amendments.
But, in either case, constitutional amendments become effective only after being ratified by three-fourths of the states. An example of a proposed amendment that was voted down was the proposed “Equal Rights Amendment,” which intended to guarantee that, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Proposed in 1972, it was ratified by only 34 of the necessary 38 states. Short by four votes, the amendment was not ratified.
There is still much to learn, I believe, from how older and more mature democracies like the United States go about changing or amending their Constitution, and how we have gone about revising ours in the last three times since 1935. But, to me, some lessons are very clear: comprehensive analysis, testing, and exhausting all options, and widespread consultation are all musts.
In the news of late, 19 groups have reportedly expressed their support for some economic ministers in calling on Congress to carefully consider the financial and fiscal costs of changing the charter to change the form of government. “At this time when financial markets in developing countries are being roiled following the difficulties of Venezuela and Turkey, it is all the more important that all sectors are seen as solidly behind the call of our economic managers for fiscal prudence, more dialogues and a well-considered approach in the shift to federal form of government,” the groups said in a joint statement issued to the press.
The groups are concerned that federalism will result in a “fiscal imbalance” that “would have dire consequences on the economy, as well as the government’s push for infrastructure development, particularly the flagship ‘Build, Build, Build’ program.” Thus, they are pushing for “full, open, and dispassionate dialogues on this proposed shift in form of government, keeping in mind its long-term impacts on future generations of Filipinos.”
One cannot help but agree with the call, for the simple reason that the life of a state is more dependent on the vibrance of its economy than its politics. A proposed change in the form of government cannot be taken lightly, given its far-reaching implications, especially if the effort appears to imperil the nation’s finances if not its very survival.