Proposed Bill of Rights revision sets back constitutional reform

OTHING - stitution than a proposed revision that is misguided, foolish and downright wrong. It sets back the cause of constitutional reform, and it advances the reactionary agenda of those who oppose any change to the Charter.

This is how we should view the absurd proposal of some quarters to revise a major part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

simply and clearly: “No law shall be passed abridging 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.”

A House subcommittee on constitutional amendments proposes to revise the provision to read instead: “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.”

The proponent, a deputy speaker Rep. Fredenil Castro, declares innocently that all it does is insert the word “responsible” into the provision. In fact, it is an arrant act of abridging an original provision that has been carried intact from the 1935 Constitution to the 1973

In the storm that greeted his proposal, Castro tried to explain the revision as follows: “There is so much abuse of this freedom. They think it is unrestrained. Therefore, we propose the insertion of that phrase.”

This worsens things, because as he explained himself, what he really evidently wants to curtail is freedom of the press.

Later, Castro defended his handiwork by saying that the proposed amendment did not come from the House subcommittee but from the Presidential Committee on Human Rights secretariat.

This provoked a stern Malacañang statement, which disowned the secretariat and declared that the President absolutely had no hand in the proposal to amend the Bill of Rights.

Palace spokesman Harry Roque said at a news conference in Aklan: “I’d like to clarify that Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat is not or does not have the rank of a Cabinet member. This means that when they spoke, they did not speak as an alter ego of the President. So that is the recommendation of the Secretariat. It is not in any way the position of the President.”

of Castro’s subcommittee.

For a provision that explicitly forbids abridging, Castro’s subcommittee leads in abridging the essence of the original provision. The English word “abridge” means (1) “to curtail or diminish” or (2) “to reduce by condensing or rewriting.”

Castro’s offense here is not only semantic; it is irresponsible and offensive.

rights: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and to petition for redress.

The phrase “of expression” is actually an insertion by the 1935 Constitution.

According to one Con-com member, author Jose N. Nolledo, the words “of expression” was an amendment proposed to include even mimicry.

By inserting the word “responsible,” Rep. Castro abridges what “responsible use” means or would cover.

The Castro amendment should be rejected for interference with the right, by demanding responsibility in the exercise of the right.