By Rhonadale Florentino
When the 1987 Constitution was ratified, it came with a promise that the Philippines will never again be led by a dictator, nor will there be a loss of basic freedom. In many ways, the Constitution was expected to restore democratic institutions and ensure that the people can participate in how the government is being run. But, 40 years later, according to the paper done by the Australian National University in 2021 entitled, “Philippine Economic Development: Looking Backwards and Forward: An Interpretative Essay,” the Philippines is still mired with a lot of socioeconomic problems and is now lagging behind other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in terms of economic growth and development.
Of late, news about rampant corruption has started coming out of the woodwork — massive flood-control projects that were either nonexistent or have not been completed, all involving lawmakers and other government officials. This has led to massive protests from all parts of the country that one would think imprisonment of some of the country’s lawmakers would be inevitable. A hundred days later, no one has been sent to jail. This has raised a lot of questions on how strong the 1987 Constitution is in holding public officials accountable.
Going Back in Time
The 1987 Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987, under the administration of the late Corazon Aquino. It was drafted in 133 days by the Constitutional Commission which was made up of 48 members. Some of the notable differences between the 1987 and the 1973 versions included the restoration of the bicameral legislature, the restoration and expansion of the Bill of Rights and judicial review powers, and limitations to the power held by the President, including the term of office. These safeguards were kept to ensure that a return to the dictatorship was not possible. But this was in 1987, when the major clamor was for the restoration of civil rights and the safeguarding of democracy. Fast-forward to today, these concerns are now vastly different from our current socio-economic and political realities.
Now, one might think that the current Constitution has just been sitting in a cabinet in its original form, but this is far from reality. In fact, a number of proposals for its revision and amendment have been either initiated or proposed since its ratification.
Revision or Amendment?
Most ordinary Filipinos interchangeably use “revision” and “amendment” when referring to any changes to be made in the Constitution; however, the two are actually different. When one speaks of “major” changes, such as the change in the structure of the government or a change in a significant number of provisions, then this is referred to as a “revision.” On the other hand, simple changes that involve only a handful of provisions are generally referred to as an “amendment.” This distinction is important since the process for revision and amendment has some differences.
The Timeline
Most calls for revisions of the Constitution centered on the form of government that the Philippines has, as well as the term limits of high-ranking government positions.
The first attempt to revise the constitution happened under the administration of Fidel V. Ramos. One of the changes proposed back then was the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos then argued that this change will allow for a more stable implementation of projects since there will be minimal need to hand it off from one administration to the next. A rally of more than half a million Filipinos opposed the process that would have led to a referendum, with most people arguing that it would benefit the incumbent officials alone.
Proposals for revisions were also raised during the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo amidst calls for her impeachment following the “Hello Garci” scandal. Arroyo argued that the current structure of the government has become a hindrance to national progress and, thus, should be changed to a federal parliamentary system. This did not progress as well given the political situation during that time and the defections of a significant number of key personnel in the cabinet.
The call for a change in the form of government momentarily stopped during the administration of Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, the son of the late Benigno Aquino, Jr. who played a significant role in the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. amidst the martial law. However, upon the succession of Rodrigo Duterte, discussions on amendments and revisions were once again reignited since he ran under the promise of federalism. This was put to a halt when the pandemic happened due to disagreements between political allies.
Currently, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. has been cautious as far as making pronouncements about constitutional revisions that would change the structure or lift the terms of office.
Another heavily criticized provision in the 1987 Constitution is Article 12, Sections 2 and 10 which limit certain economic sectors to Filipinos only, those deemed to be critical to national interest while some areas have placed a cap of 40 percent in terms of foreign ownership. According to the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS), this has significantly impacted the speed of growth of the Philippine economy compared to its neighboring countries. Criticisms also revolve around the possibility of exploitation of the 60-40 rule in the form of dummy corporations and nominee shareholders, leading to critics saying that these actually protect the oligarchs more than they protect public interest.
On this end, some of the recent amendments include RA 11659 (Public Service Act Amendatory Law), which provided for a more specific definition of public utilities, differentiating it from “public services.” The said law also allowed 100 percent foreign ownership for sectors such as railways, airports, expressways, and telecommunication. The hope is that this increased competition will result in lower prices for consumers while taking advantage of better technology.
There is also the RA 11647 (Foreign Investments Act Amendatory Law) which mandates some foreign businesses that are employing foreign nationals and taking advantage of fiscal incentives to provide skills development programs for Filipino workers. Lastly, we have RA 11595 (Retail Trade Liberalization Act Amendatory Law) which also allows for 100 percent foreign ownership for single-brand retail stores.
These amendments show the government’s desire to keep up with the economic growth that the neighboring countries of the Philippines are also enjoying.
Moving Forward
Approaching the topic of revisions has to be done with caution. While there has been an enduring clamor to revise or amend the 1987 Constitution, it is strikingly noticeable that it generally involves the term of office of key positions only or the overall structure of the government – matters that may not necessarily address the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic concerns of the country but mainly pander to the personal desires of those in power. If we take into consideration the current controversies on the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) projects and widespread corruption, this gap becomes even more apparent. To some extent, we can say that this is understandable considering that calls for revisions from the very people involved in the controversy might be deemed as hypocritical, especially if it concerns the accountability of public officials. Will the common “tao”, then, make use of their power to call for such strengthening to hold public officers accountable and liable? If so, how will they do it, and who is going to lead it? Will we learn to make this our topmost concern, or will the prevailing blindness and loyalty to party colors prevail?