Concom blasts Davide for comments on draft charter

The consultative committee (Concom) reviewing the 1987 Constitution slammed former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr. for his comments that the body’s draft of the proposed federal constitution was “anti-poor, anti-Filipino and pro-dynasty.”

Davide could have been describing the current 1987 Constitution when he made the remarks in a speech with lawyers last Friday, Concom spokesman Conrado Generoso said yesterday.

“Former chief justice Hilario Davide’s statement that the consultative committee’s draft constitution is ‘anti-poor, anti- Filipino and pro dynasty’ betrays his confusion, lack of sincerity and lack of logic in the ongoing debate on the proposal to revise the 1987 Constitution,” Generoso said.

Generoso particularly cited Davide’s comment that the phrase “West Philippine Sea” should have been put in the draft constitution’s provision on national territory.

“If he really believes that it should be put in the territory provision now, then why is he opposing any change in the Constitution?” he asked.

Generoso said Davide does not want the Constitution amended or revised “yet he says that the Concom is wrong in revising the article on territory and not putting ‘West Philippine Sea.’”

The framers of the 1987 Constitution “only talked of sovereignty over territory,” he added, when they “had the chance to put the words ‘West Philippine Sea’ or ‘South China Sea…’ they did not make any loose reference to it even in the way the Article is phrased in the 1987 Constitution.”

In the 1987 Constitution, Article 1 tackling national territory says, “The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Concom’s draft federal constitution contained two sections, with section 1 saying that the Philippines “has sovereignty over islands and features outside its archipelagic baselines pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations, and the judgments of competent international courts or tribunals. It likewise has sovereignty over other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.”

Section 2 said, “The Philippines has sovereign rights over that maritime expanse beyond its territorial sea to the extent reserved to it by international law, as well as over its extended continental shelf, including the Philippine Rise. Its citizens shall enjoy the right to all resources within these areas.”

Generoso also cried foul over Davide’s criticism that the draft federal constitution is “pro-dynasty,” or favoring the thriving of political dynasties.

Article 2, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution ensured that political dynasties would be prohibited “as may be defined by law,” but Generoso pointed out in a statement that “after 32 years, the Congress—created by the 1987 Constitution that allowed dynasties to proliferate and control the Congress—has not passed an anti-dynasty law.”

He also emphasized that the draft federal charter already provided specific details on the ban on political dynasties, where persons related to incumbent elected officials to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity – or the elected official’s parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren and in-laws – cannot replace the official or run for another position.

During the debates by the 1986 constitutional commission, Davide – then a member of the body – argued that “the idea of eliminating political dynasties is really to see to it that there will be greater opportunities to public service… when we prohibit political dynasties, it is to open up the opportunities to more and more people, otherwise it would be a monopoly only of a very few.”