PHILIPPINES IN TURMOIL
CHARTER CHANGE CONTROVERSY SPARKS POLITICAL CRISIS PROMPTS DOUBTS ON POLITICAL INTEGRITY, GOVERNANCE PROSPECTS
IS THE Philippines facing a political crisis? This query arises from recent attempts to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution, sparking widespread concern across the nation.
The controversy originated with the circulation of documents, notably in Davao City, where constituents were reportedly offered sums ranging from P2,000 to P3,000 for their signatures.
Interviews conducted by SunStar Davao revealed that some signatories were approached without a full comprehension of the petition’s contents, initially mistaking it for a belated Christmas “pahalipay” or cash aid.
Subsequently, it was revealed that the documents aimed at amending the Constitution through a “people’s initiative (PI),” a trending topic in recent weeks. If successful, this initiative would empower all members of Congress to collectively vote on proposed amendments.
Attempts to amend the Constitution are not novel; they have been advocated by various administrations since its ratification in 1987.
Former President Fidel Ramos and former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sought to transition to a parliamentary form of government, while former President Rodrigo Duterte advocated for federalism, albeit unsuccessfully. Presently, under the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., renewed efforts for constitutional change have emerged, sparking significant controversy.
‘Dabawenyos are not for sale’
The PI initiative has faced strong opposition from lawmakers like First District Representative Paolo “Pulong” Z. Duterte, who denounced it in a statement on January 9, 2024, as an attempt by a minority to perpetuate their power.
Davao City Third District Representative Isidro Ungab also expressed concern over the circulation of Cha-Cha-related documents in his constituency.
Allegations have been made regarding the involvement of Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA) Partylist Representative Margarita “Atty. Migs” Nograles in Davao City.
Nograles, however, denied the accusation and clarified that the speculations against her are unfounded as she was out of the country when the issue surfaced in the Philippines, particularly in Davao City. The news sparked outrage among some Dabawenyos, prompting individuals to organize
caravans and rallies to voice their opposition. On January 28, 2024, a prayer rally against the PI, dubbed “Unity for One Nation, One Prayer,” took place at San Pedro Square on San Pedro Street in Davao City.
According to the final tally from the Davao City Police Office, over 53,000 Filipinos nationwide gathered in response to their collective call to oppose “No to Charter change” or amendments to the 1987 Constitution.
A similar event dubbed “Hakbang ng Maisug Prayer Rally” was held in Cebu on February 25.
What is PI?
PI, commonly referred to in the Philippines, denotes a method for constitutional amendment as outlined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution or the act of advocating for an initiative, whether on a national or local scale, as permitted by the Philippine Initiative and Referendum Act of 1987.
It grants Filipino citizens the legal right to directly propose statutes or call for referendums at both national and local government levels.
Other constitutional amendment methods outlined in the Constitution include a Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass) or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), both of which enable a complete revision of the charter.
The signature campaign, which seeks voter opinion on amending Article 17 Section 1 of the Constitution to allow all members of Congress to collectively vote on proposed amendments, falls under the PI provision. The provision mandates that amendments can be proposed directly by the people through an initiative requiring a petition signed by at least 12 percent of the total registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three percent of its registered voters.
Political analyst Prof. Ramon Beleno III of the Ateneo de Davao University (AdDU) highlights the Con-Ass as a “dangerous mode” due to its requirement for a three-fourths vote of Congress. He contends that this grants lawmakers significant authority to propose and amend laws, which could potentially be motivated by political interests. Therefore, he emphasizes the need for stricter requirements in such a process.
PI: Unconstitutional and fraud
Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has denounced the proposed revision of the Constitution as a “fraud.”
Speaking at a forum at the MIC Retreat House in Davao City on February 25, Carpio argued that although presented as an avenue for economic reforms, the PI is a “political provision” aimed at influencing the 2028 elections and potentially transitioning the government into a parliamentary system.
Carpio characterized the PI as a “gigantic fraud,” asserting that despite its economic reform facade, it seeks to alter unrelated provisions, thereby being deceptive.
As one of the three methods for revising the constitution, PI is limited to introducing amendments, not full revisions.
Carpio supported this stance by citing provisions in the 1987 Constitution and referencing a 2006 Supreme Court case he authored, Lambino v. Comelec. He clarified that the people’s initiative “only speaks of amendment,” while the other two methods – constitutional convention and constituent assembly – can propose both amendments and revisions to the constitution.
In the Lambino v. Comelec case, Carpio emphasized that altering the checks and balances in Congress constitutes a revision.
Referring to Article 17 of the Constitution, Carpio explained that any amendment or revision of the charter can be done through a constitutional convention, assembly, or people’s initiative.
He distinguished a constitutional amendment as any change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principles and without affecting the substantial provisions of the Constitution.
A revision involves an overhaul or change of the principle of one or many provisions.
“The status as of now is there is no enabling law implementing the People’s Initiative provision of the Constitution,” Carpio said, adding that in the absence of an enabling law, the initiative cannot proceed.
Former President Duterte also criticized the initiative during the prayer rally in Davao City. He called for accountability and condemned the alleged buying of votes or signatures as a betrayal of the public’s trust. He accused First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez, Marcos’ cousin, of orchestrating the PI.
Senate vs HoR?
The ongoing crisis is defined by the conflict between the upper and lower houses of the Congress of the Philippines. While the House of Representatives (HoR) is in favor of amending the constitution, the Senate opposes it, with support from several high-profile politicians, including former presidents and Marcos’ predecessor.
The HoR has taken a stand against what it perceives as the
Senate’s confrontational stance amid its investigation into the PI for Cha-cha.
On Monday, February 5, 2024, at least 286 lawmakers from the HoR voted in favor of adopting House Resolution 1562. This resolution aims to demonstrate “unwavering solidarity” with the leadership of the House Speaker, condemning what they see as undue interference from the Senate in their legislative and constituent functions.
Amendment on econ provision
On March 20, 2024, the HoR approved Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 on its third and final reading. This resolution contains its version of proposed amendments to the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions.
Both RBH No. 6 and 7 seek to amend Articles 12, 14, and 16 of the Constitution, addressing provisions on public services, education, and the advertising industry. These amendments involve the insertion of the phrase, “unless otherwise provided by law.”
The aim is to grant Congress the authority to lift or relax current economic restrictions outlined in the nation’s basic law.
Additionally, RBH No. 7 proposes the addition of the qualifier “basic” to Paragraph 2, Section 4 of Article XIV. This provision mandates that educational institutions adhere to a 60-40 ownership rule, with at least 60 percent owned by a Filipino citizen or corporation and the remainder by foreign investors.
The amendment ensures that ownership of basic education facilities remains in Filipino hands, while higher education facilities would be open to full foreign ownership.
Cha-Cha for term extension
Former President Duterte expressed his disbelief, questioning why the PI was even considered.
He remarked, “Bakit pumasok sa utak ninyo ‘yang People’s Initiative? Anong nakain ninyo (What got into your minds)?”
He asserted that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution at present and viewed the initiative as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Duterte also cast doubts on the motives behind the constitutional amendment, particularly concerning the transition from a democratic to a parliamentary government.
As a lawyer and former prosecutor, Duterte harbored doubts about the amendment’s purpose, suggesting it could serve as a means for President
Marcos Jr. to extend his term, akin to his father’s 20-year rule.
Expressing skepticism, Duterte also lacked trust in the assemblymen within a parliamentary government, criticizing them for seeming money-driven.
Furthermore, Duterte alleged that House Speaker Romualdez is eyeing the position of prime minister if the constitutional amendment succeeds. He reminded Marcos of his single-term limit and cautioned against seeking an extension, warning that it could lead to chaos.
Carpio argued that despite being presented as an avenue for economic reforms, the PI is a “political provision” aimed at influencing the 2028 elections and potentially transitioning the government into a parliamentary system. He believed that the push for constitutional change through PI is not genuinely about economic provisions but rather a strategic move for the 2028 elections.
What went wrong?
Beleno, for his part, emphasized that there is nothing inherently wrong with pushing for Cha-Cha, noting the necessity to amend the constitution.
However, he criticized the PI for starting on the “wrong foot.” He pointed to the “cash-for-signature” scheme as a major factor, asserting that this fraudulent activity deprived opportunities for meaningful discussion about the amendment.
He suggested that if organizers had properly explained the amendment’s purpose, it wouldn’t have been impossible to garner public support.
“How can we expect that it would come in a good intention if may panloloko involved?,” he stressed. He lamented the missed opportunity and the flawed process of the People’s Initiative.
Given the stringent provisions of the 1987 Constitution, amending it is challenging, particularly due to the trauma experienced during the 20-year rule of the late dictator, former President Ferdinand Marcos.
As the 2025 elections draw near, allies of Marcos Jr. would face difficulties in pushing for Cha-Cha if it’s not passed before the midterm elections. This situation mirrors that of former President Duterte, who advocated for federalism but lacked support from both Houses of Congress.
As for whether Cha-Cha would finally succeed this time, it remains uncertain, but one can expect more drama and turning points in the process. /