Aquino, Garin could be held liable in Dengvaxia case – Gordon

Sen. Richard Gordon on Monday said former President Benigno Aquino III and former Health
Secretary Janette Garin could be held criminally liable for implementing a dengue
immunization program that had been halted over safety concerns.

Following Sanofi Pasteur’s statement last week that use of Dengvaxia must be strictly limited
due to evidence it could worsen the disease in people not previously exposed to the dengue
virus, Gordon said the matter was “begging a civil suit” and a “multimillion-peso” case at that
because it involved thousands of children.

Gordon said that as chair of the Senate blue ribbon committee, he would hold another hearing
on the dengue vaccine next Monday following the latest controversy.

No due diligence

His committee conducted an inquiry last year after the reported deaths of two children who
were vaccinated with Dengvaxia.

“It proves the point that [the Aquino administration was] not exercising due diligence,” Gordon
told reporters.

There was no comment from Aquino on Monday, but Garin welcomed the Senate inquiry and
the investigation ordered by the Department of Justice.

“I will answer all questions at the right time and in the appropriate forum. I will also wait [for
clarification] from the [Department of Health and the World Health Organization], as they are
the authorities on this,” Garin said.

Garin apologized for her two days of silence, saying she was attending to her ailing father.

On Sunday, Garin said the immunization program was implemented in accordance with WHO
guidelines.

Gordon said there “must have been added motive for fast-tracking” the immunization program,
noting that the money for the purchase of the vaccine was approved on
Dec. 29, 2015, or the eve of the 2016 election campaign.

Only Sanofi can be sued

He said he found it unusual that Aquino met with Sanofi officials twice and then the approval of
the immunization program came fast afterward.

Gordon said the government could not be sued in this case, only Sanofi.

“It’s going to be Sanofi but they can be held criminally liable,” he said, explaining this was for
“negligence and even knowing that [the vaccine] has not been tested and they pursued it.”

‘Everybody from P-Noy’

Asked who should be held liable, he replied: “Everybody from P-Noy. P-Noy has to explain. He
should explain that he does not know about it.”

P-Noy is the nickname of the former President.

Asked whether Garin should be held liable as well, he said “definitely.”

The good government committee of the House of Representatives may also reopen its inquiry
into the immunization program, said Rep. Johnny Pimentel, the panel’s chair.

“We have to verify reports whether there were bad effects on the students,” he said, referring to
the more than 733,000 schoolchildren who had been vaccinated under the program.

“If it’s true, then we will reopen the case,” he said. —With reports from Vince F. Nonato and
Nestor P. Burgos
=============================================================

Constituent Assembly (Philippines)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constituent Assembly, is a term descibing one of the three methods by which amendments to
the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines may be proposed. The other two modes are via People's
Initiative and Constitutional Convention. All three require a majority vote in a national referendum.
A Constituent Assembly is composed of all members of the bicameral Congress of the
Philippines (Senate and the House of Representatives). It is convened by Congress to propose
amendments to the 1987 constitution. Under Article XVII of the Constitution of the Philippines,
amendments pass upon a vote of three fourths of all members of Congress, but it is not clear if the
Congress should vote as a single body or as separate houses. The convention of Congress into a
Constituent Assembly is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, since the term "Constituent
Assembly" is not used in the Constitution.

Federalism in the Philippines

Emilio Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini intended the Philippines to be divided into three federal
states, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao.
Federalism in the Philippines (Filipino: Pederalismo sa Pilipinas) is a proposed form of government
in the country.

History[edit]
The concept of a federal government for the Philippines was proposed as early as the Philippine
Revolution with Filipino revolutionaries Emilio Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini suggesting dividing
the islands into three federal states. [1]
One of the first proponents of federalism in the Philippines in the 21st century is University of the
Philippines professor Jose Abueva who argued that a federal form of government is necessary to
more efficiently cater to the needs of the country despite its diversity. [2] The primary goals of a
constitutional amendment is to increase decentralization, greater local power and access to
resources most especially among regions outside Metro Manila which has long been dubbed as
rather imperial.[3] Aside from Abueva, senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. is a prominent supporter of
federalism who, since 2001, has advocated for federalism. He sees the proposed system as a key
component in alleviating the Mindanao crisis and appeasing Moro insurgents. Even though the
purpose of Federalism was never intended to appease any followers of any specific ideology of
religion. Federalism will also hasten economic development since resource and financial mobilization
is upon each states' or provinces' discretion without significant constraint from the central
government.[4]
Due to the Senate and Congress resolutions supporting charter change, an estimated 13,000 to
15,000 people gathered in Makati in 2009 to protest against administration proposals for
constitutional reform. This was in line with speculations that Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo would use such amendment to extend her hold in office. [5] In addition, Pulse Asia published in
the same year their survey regarding public support towards the proposed charter change. Their
report stated that four out of ten Filipino adults or 42% of all respondents opposed the amendment.
Meanwhile, 25% were still undecided and 33% were in favor. Pulse Asia furthered that from 2006 to
2009, there was no significant change of sentiment against charter change, but indecision increased
by 6%.[6]
Beginning in late 2014, Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte launched a nationwide campaign
promoting a charter change for federalism. During his visit to Cebu City in October of the same year,
Duterte stated that federalism will facilitate better delivery of services to the people. [7] He also saw the
current system as "antiquated"[8] where distribution of public funds is disproportionately
biased towards Manila. Aside from the economic aspect, federalism is also seen as the best means to
address problems in Mindanao which suffers the most from ethnoreligious conflicts. [9] He added that
the current unitary form of government has not worked well given the ethnic diversity in the country.
[10]
In spite of rejecting several calls for candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections, he also cited his
reforms if he were to be president. Parallel to his campaign for federalism, Duterte plans to
privatize tax collection and abolish the Congress to make way for a unicameral legislature, contrary to
the originally proposed Joint Resolution No. 10. [11]
Movements for federalism were further intensified since the draft of the Bangsamoro Basic Law was
submitted by Philippine president Benigno Aquino III to the Congress in September 10, 2014.[12] If
approved, this law establishes the Bangsamoro as an autonomous region with its own parliamentary
government and police force.[13] Approval of the Bangsamoro structure provides federalism
proponents and supporters added confidence to clamor for the national government to enact reforms
towards a more decentralized system for the rest of the country. [8]
President-elect Rodrigo Duterte stated in May 2016 that a plebiscite on the proposed replacement of
the unitary state with a federal one will be held in two years. [14] On December 7, 2016, Duterte
signed Executive Order No. 10 creating a consultative committee to review the 1987 Constitution.[15]

Initiatives[edit]
Joint Resolution No. 10[edit]
The resolution might have required the revision of 14 of the 18 Articles of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution and the addition of two new articles. It sought to adopt
a federal presidentialbicameral form of government. This proposed resolution was backed by 12
senators of the Philippines: (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Edgardo Angara, Rodolfo Biazon, Pia
Cayetano, Juan Ponce Enrile, Francis "Chiz" Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo
Lacson, Francis Pangilinan, Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Manuel "Manny" Villar) [16]
In 2008, senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. proposed Joint Resolution No. 10, which would revise the
current 1987 constitution and have created eleven autonomous regions out of the Philippine
Republic, establishing eleven centers of finance and development in the archipelago. [17]
The proposal would result in the creation of eleven "states" and one federal administrative region. [18][19]
Within the joint resolution are certain proposals such as election of senators based on states,
senators representing overseas voters and the state governor and vice-governor as one team.
The Judicial and Bar Council which screens nominees to the judiciary would be abolished.
Geographic locations of the three branches of the government would also be reconsidered. In the
proposal, the legislative department would be transferred to what would become the State of Central
Visayas while the judicial department would be moved somewhere within the State of Northern
Luzon. The executive department would remain within the federal administrative region of Metro
Manila.[20]
While Pimentel Jr.'s earlier proposal for a Federal Philippines is to include the area currently governed
by the Cordillera Administrative Region to the Northern Luzon state, Pimentel mentioned on August
2017 two possible setup for the Cordilleras under a federal government at the North Luzon
Federalism Summit: An autonomous Cordillera region within the Northern Luzon state or the region
as a separate federal state from North Luzon due to an existence of an autonomy movement for the
region for the long time and a provision to give autonomy to the Cordilleras is stated in the current
Constitution. He also made the same pronouncements during a live interview with journalist Karen
Davila.[21] After the abolition of the Negros Island Region on August 9, 2017, there have been several
regional movements driven by the Negrenses of supporting the unification of the twin Negros
provinces (Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental) under one federal state.[22][23]
In January 2018, Pimentel suggested to include Malaysian-administered territory of Sabah as a state
to assert Philippine claim over the disputed territory in a way "acceptable under international laws". [24]
House Concurrent Resolution No. 15[edit]
Rep. Monico O. Puentevella on May 7, 2008, filed House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 which
supported Senate Resolution No. 10 backed by 16 senators. Unlike the Nene PimentelSenate
Resolution, Puentevella included the option of holding a constitutional convention, but excluded
the People's Initiative mode.[25] Prospero Nograles, a self-proclaimed advocate of federalism, on May
1, 2008, announced: "This federal system of government is close to my heart as a Mindanaoan leader
and I'm sure most of the leaders in Mindanao will agree that we have long clamored for it. Senate
Resolution 10 is a pleasant surprise because the Senate has a long history of opposing any move to
amend the Constitution."[26]The joint Senate resolution called for the creation of 11 federal states in
the country, by convening of Congress “into a constituent assembly for the purpose of revising the
Constitution to establish a federal system of government.”
Alvarez proposal[edit]
In 2017, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez's vision for a federal Philippines called for 14 states: 7 in
Luzon, 2 in Visayas and 5 in Mindanao. He also proposed that the capital of the Philippines under a
federal government should be somewhere in Negros island saying that it would be accessible to all
people from the three island groups while he added that the state's territory does not have to be
contiguous.[27] Indigenous groups are in favor of the proposal, but are wary of the possibility of a 'no
term limit' for politicians, which is a grave scandal in many Filipino indigenous societies, especially in
the Cordilleras.[citation needed] In February 2018, Alvarez reiterated that he shall input an indigenous state
in the Cordilleras in Luzon and an indigenous state in Mindanao, whatever federal set-up is approved
by the President.[28]

Proposed states by House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez (2017)

Luzon Visayas Mindanao

Bicol

Ilocos Eastern Mindanao

Metro Manila Western Mindanao

Eastern
Visayas
Mimaropa Unnamed Moro State (Sulu Archipelago)
Western
Central Luzon Unnamed Moro State (Maguindanao / Lanao
Visayas
del Sur)
Southern Tagalog
Unnamed I.P. State (Lumads)
Unnamed I.P. State
(Igorot)
2018 House Sub-Committee 1 proposal[edit]
The Sub-Committee 1 of the House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Amendments
proposed that a federal Philippines would comprise of five states. Each states to be led by a premiere
as its executive head will have a State Assembly according to the proposal. The proposal has been
hit by massive criticism due to general lumping and a lack of representation. According to the
proposal, politicians will have 'more than' two consecutive terms, making them eligible to run for office
with no term limit.[29]
Former Senate President Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel, Jr. urged the people on Friday not to leave the
matter of the shift of government to federalism “to the devices of our lawmakers alone.”

According to him, it is the Filipino people who should ultimately decide whether or not to pursue the
shift to federalism. This is why the people must inform themselves about it and make their voices
heard by the lawmakers, so that it is their will that gets embedded into the new Constitution.

At the launch by the Ateneo School of Government and the Ateneo de Manila University Press of
Debate on Federal Philippines: A Citizen’s Handbook, Pimentel added: “Tell them what to do. We
have to make sure that they get to hear the voice of the people.”

He urged senators and congressmen to go to the farthest corners of the Philippines and conduct
public hearings on the issue so that the attitudes of the people will find their way into the lawmakers’
thinking as they revise the Constitution through a constituent assembly.

Pimentel was one of the co-authors of the Local Government Code of 1991, and is a known advocate
of federalism.

But, he noted, “our proposal to adopt the federal system is not written in stone like the Ten
Commandments.”

“Hindi nakataga sa bato, not even sa ulo ni Bato (Not even on the head of Bato),” he quipped,
alluding to the clean-shaven Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Director-General Ronald
dela Rosa, whose nickname is “Bato”.

Before the Constitution is amended to adopt federalism, said Pimentel, “the people will still approve
or reject it through a plebiscite. It still requires the participation of the people. Are you for it, or not?
Ultimately, the people will have to decide.”

So, if the people are to decide with discernment, Pimentel said, it is vital to participate in discussions
and read up on books such as the one featured at the Ateneo event.

In essence, Pimentel explained, federalism is a way to “provide a workable, doable, and practical
solution to the continuing concentration of the powers of government in the highly centralized system
of government that we now have, so that we can solve the… problem, particularly of the rebellion of
our Muslim brethren in parts of Mindanao, and hopefully the rebellion also of our brethren in the NPA,
and thereby speed up the development of the country.”

Federalism is intended to address the long-standing conflicts and inequality through the sharing of
political power. “It’s very difficult to talk about development when all you hear are bullets whizzing
by your ears,” he added.

“We’re talking here of power. And we cannot just leave power in the hands of the centralized system
of government because, otherwise, the rest of the nation will be disempowered from having a chance
to develop their own communities according to what is best to their people, as determined by them,
without the central government poking its fingers into attempts by local governments to adopt this
kind of development effort,” Pimentel said.
As an example, he said, local government officials could not, presently, simply invite investors to go
to their hometowns. They have to ask permission from the National Economic and Development
Authority first.

The need to curtail political dynasties, Pimentel said, was urgent: “Political dynasties proliferate in
this country because the wording of the present Constitution is quite limited. And what does the
present Constitution say? The present Constitution says political dynasties are prohibited in
accordance with law, period. Who’s going to pass the law if political dynasties themselves control the
mechanism of all legislature?” he asked.

He continued, “And therefore when we revise the Constitution… we have to spell out, what do we
mean by political dynasties? Spell it out, meaning a father or a mother who is in public office cannot
pass on the matter of his or her authority, or to the husband’s wife, daughter, mistress, whatever …”

“If we adopt a federal system of government, we had better make sure that, since we are revising
the Constitution to adopt the federal system, we might as well put a provision also in that
Constitution that will spell out exactly what we mean by a prohibited political dynasty,” he added.

Senate President Koko Pimentel pays respect to his father, former Senate President Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel.
Photographed by Cesar Tomambo, PRIB
Based on what he has heard in the Senate – with his son, Koko, at the helm as Senate President –
the Upper House is considering prohibiting up to first cousins from serving in the government.

He also emphasized that the Philippines must not just blindly copy the federal system of other
countries. Rather, it must adopt a system that suits the country’s culture and traditions.

This is why, though he is not “blocking the possibility of incorporating the concept of a federal system
with a parliamentary or a semi-parliamentary form of government,” he usually talks about the
federal-presidential proposal during discussions because Filipinos are more familiar with it.

However, Florangel Rosario-Braid, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, expressed

worry that the shift to federalism is being rushed. The pros and cons must still be considered.

Dr. Julio Teehankee, a professor of Political Science at De La Salle University and one of the authors
of Debate on Federal Philippines: A Citizen’s Handbook, nevertheless came to the defense of
federalism, pointing out that the country’s “economic geography” has remained the same over the
past 40 years.

“The traditionally poor regions of Western Mindanao are left behind,” he said. He pointed out that in
2016, the budget for Metro Manila and Luzon accounted for 56 percent of the entire General
Appropriations Act. Meanwhile, Metro Manila, Calabarzon, and Central Luzon account for 62 percent
of the gross domestic product, while 14 out of the 17 regions account for only 38 percent of the GDP.

There is a need to mobilize and empower the regions. Federalism enables development of self-
government, according to Teehankee. Those who confront the daily problems at the local level will
have the power to address these; they won’t need to beg national government.
“We have waited long enough,” he added. Federalism is about “dispersing power from the national to
the local”; no longer will the center control local governments through “patronage and clientelism.”

How to amend the 1987 Constitution

MANILA - Article XVII section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides the procedure for its
amendment or revision, viz:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
2. A constitutional convention.
Before us is Resolution No. 1 introduced by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. entitled
“Resolution of Both Houses Proposing Amendments to Certain Economic Provisions of
the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Particularly on Articles XII, XIV
and XVI.” Its resolutory part states: “Resolved by the Senate and the House of
Representatives, by a vote of three fourths of all its Members, each House voting
separately, and pursuant to article XVII of the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, with the following proposals: …”
The question is whether Resolution No. 1 is in accord or is in discord with Article XVII,
section 1 of the 1987 Constitution which prescribes the procedure for amending or
revising the Constitution. Again, we are confronted with the need to properly interpret
Article XVII section 1. Its history reveals that this section was written in anticipation that a
unicameral legislature would be established in the final draft of the 1987 Constitution.
Contrary to expectation, a bicameral legislature was chosen by the Commissioners.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Amendments and Transitory provision forgot to rewrite
Article XVII section 1 and adopt the time tested procedure of amending or revising a
constitution where the legislature is bicameral in character. In bicameral legislatures, the
traditional mode of amending or revising a Constitution is for both houses to convene in
joint assembly and to vote separately. These requirements are omitted when the
legislature is unicameral for self-evident reasons.
Stated otherwise, the problem is: how do you interpret the procedure of amendment or
revision of the Constitution provided in its Article XVII section 1 which was designed for a
unicameral legislature yet we have a bicameral legislature? In the search for the proper
approach, I submit, with due respect, the following thoughts:
1. We should consider the history of Article XVII section 1, and give life to the intent of the
people that ratified the Constitution.
2. The clear intent is to have a bicameral and not a unicameral legislature.
3. Following that intent, Article XVII section 1 should not be interpreted in any manner that
will negate or derogate the bicameral nature of our legislature which is the constitutional
structure approved by the people.
I further submit that we can take an approach without doing violence to the literal words of
Article XVII, section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. In light of our time constraint, allow me to
give an abbreviated discourse.
Let us again examine the exact wording of the pertinent part of Article XVII section 1 of the
1987 Constitution, to wit:
Sec. 1. Any amendment to or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress upon a vote of three fourths of all its members: or x x x
As worded, section 1 does not specifically command that the two houses of Congress, the
Senate and the House, must meet in joint session. Neither does it provide how the three-
fourths shall be computed, i.e., whether the three-fourth vote shall be determined based
on the votes in each house, meeting separately or three fourths of the votes cast in both
houses, meeting together. These omissions have given rise to the view that Congress
need not convene as a joint assembly when exercising its power to propose amendments
to the Constitution. Also, it has given birth to the concomitant thought that the three-fourth
vote can be computed on the basis of the total votes cast in both houses and not the votes
in each house.
It is respectfully submitted that both propositions will attract a strong constitutional
challenge. It is too simplistic to argue that they are not literally prohibited by Article XVII,
section 1. The unequivocal history of section 1 rejects them. To recall, it was never the
intention of the Constitutional Commissioners to amend or revise the Constitution where a
bicameral legislature has been installed using a procedure of amending or revising a
Constitution where a unicameral legislature has been established. The absence of the
phrases “joint assembly” and “voting separately” in section 1 of Article XVII does not justify
any suggestion that Congress need not meet jointly. Nor does it justify the idea that
Congress need not vote separately. To repeat, when the Constitutional Commissioners,
thru its Committee on Amendments crafted section 1, they had the impression that a
unicameral legislature would be adopted in the final draft of the 1987 Constitution.
Unfortunately, it was not adopted and instead a bicameral legislature was established.
Due to inadvertence, the unthinkable happened --- the Committee neglected to revise
section 1 to make it conform to the traditional way of amending or revising a Constitution
where the legislature is bicameral.
Given this historical reality, Article XVII, section 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner that
will erode the bicameral nature of the legislature that was chosen by our people when they
ratified our 1987 Constitution. A contrary interpretation will have undesirable
consequences. We need to have a more profound understanding of the necessity of a
“joint assembly” in a bicameral legislature. The power to propose amendments or to revise
the Constitution is known as the constituent power of Congress. In a bicameral legislature,
it belongs to both of its houses. It cannot be exercised unilaterally by one house alone.
The constituent power is granted to both houses as institutions. Its exercise, however, is
done thru the individual lawmakers. Its exercise from beginning to end, must be
characterized by the equal, uncoerced participation by both houses in their institutional
capacities. It’s a latent power vested in both Houses and to trigger its use, either House,
as institutions, must invite each other to gather together in joint assembly to propose
amendments or revision of the Constitution. The invitation must be acted upon favorably
or unfavorably by either House as an institution, at the very least, by a majority of its
members. In deciding to act favorably or unfavorably on the invitation, the two Houses
exercise their constituent power which is exclusively lodged on them by the Constitution.
The exclusiveness of this power underlines its importance. Whether or not it should be
exercised, how it will be exercised, the manner and procedure of its exercise are to be
determined by each House alone. We should also not lose sight of the purpose of its
exercise. To my mind, its purpose is both to complement and to countercheck the exercise
of half the power that belongs to the other branch. For all these reasons, we should refrain
from interpreting Article XVII, section 1 in a way that will diminish the importance of
convening both houses in a bicameral legislature as a joint assembly when they exercise
their constituent power.
But there is more. It is also evident that the ambiance in a joint session, where the
Senators and Congressmen stand in the same footing with each other as they discuss the
proposal to amend the Constitution is different as when they debate with each other in
separate sessions. In a joint session, there can be no doubt that the quality of the debate
is enhanced and enriched by the exchanges of ideas coming from Senators who
represent the general interest of the people at large and from Congressmen who
represent the particular interest of their specific districts. The uninhibited collision of these
contending ideas brings out the best from the people’s representatives in the Senate and
in the House when they are jointly assembled. The people deserve nothing less than their
cerebral best when the representatives from the two houses of Congress are proposing to
amend the fundamental law of the land.
A bigger anomaly will result if we are seduced by the thought that the three-fourths vote
should be computed on the basis of the total votes cast in both the Senate and the House
and notthree-fourths of the votes cast in each House voting separately. Even with a
blindfold, one can see that the proposal will render the Senate vote irrelevant considering
the disparity of the number of Senators and the Congressmen in the latter’s favor. Again,
there is no gainsaying the fact, that in proposing amendments and revising the
Constitution, the Senate must be regarded as a distinct, separate and co-equal institution
of the House, and this institutional role of the Senate cannot be whittled a bit even if there
are less Senators than Congressmen. When the members of both houses vote as co-
equal institutions, no one should be considered as superior or inferior from another,
because of the arithmetic of number alone. If ordinary laws cannot be enacted without the
equal participation of the Senate, the more reason that a proposal to amend or revise the
Constitution cannot be passed without the equal participation of the Senate. The
Constitution never contemplated the Senate to be a useless appendage in the making of a
law, more so in the making of a Constitution. Nonetheless, it appears that Resolution No.
1 respects the institutional right of the Senate to vote separately and to compute the three-
fourths vote necessary to propose any amendment to the Constitution on the basis of the
votes cast in each house.
In sum, I respectfully submit that Congress should interpret Article XVII, section 1 in a
manner that will respect the bicameral nature of our Congress. The people voted for a
bicameral legislature where both the Senate and the House are co-equal with one
another, each granted with powers designed both to complement and to check each other.
We are bound by the people’s will. This delicate structure of our legislature established by
the people themselves is an important component of our constitutional blueprint and
cannot be violated without shaking the foundation of our constitutional structure. Let us all
be guided by following the universal canon of constitutional construction, viz:
"In construing a constitutional provision, it is the duty of the court to have recourse to the
whole instrument, if necessary, to ascertain the true intent and meaning of any particular
provision. Every statement in a constitution must be interpreted in the light of the entire
document, rather than as a sequestered pronouncement; it must be regarded as
consistent with itself throughout, and because fundamental constitutional principles are of
equal dignity and none must be so enforced as to nullify or substantially impair the other,
the court should harmonize them if this can be done reasonably and without distorting the
meaning of any provision.
"It is an established canon of constitutional construction that no one provision of the
constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the
provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and are to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. Frequently, the meaning
of one provision of a constitution standing by itself may be obscure or uncertain, but is
readily apparent when resort is made to other portions of the same instrument. It is often
necessary to interpret the constitutional provision with an eye to their relation to other
provisions."
Should we amend the Constitution?

Should we amend the Constitution? Definitely yes. Should President Aquino get an
extended term? Definitely no. Not because he doesn’t deserve it. Not because the
country needs a continuance of his policies. Not because of any justification. He
shouldn’t get it for one simple, immutable reason: Change in the Constitution is so
important, so fundamental to the nation, that any change must be done with cold
reason, dispassion, uninvolvement. No one involved in the change should personally
benefit as that will color their decision. It must be prospective only, applying to those
in the future.

You don’t change a Constitution to suit a particular moment, you do it to set the
foundation of a society. If the Constitution is changed to give this leader a longer
term, then the next leader will get it too—and he or she may be a bad leader you
can’t get rid of for now even longer.
A Constitution is the lifeblood of a nation, you don’t play around with it to suit a
political moment.

In fact, any change should probably be done through an elected constitutional

convention if true independence of decision is to be achieved (although knowing
how things work in this country, electing truly independent representatives would
be a major task in itself). The 1987 Constitution was a reactionary constitution
developed in reaction to the excesses of the Marcos regime, and at a time when
redeveloping a national identity overrode a need for balance. Consequently it ended
up far too detailed when general policy and ideology are what a Constitution calls
for. The confidence and recent success of the country have highlighted some of the
weaknesses this has led to.

Everyone but everyone that matters recognizes the reality of the global world today
and that opening up the economy to a wholly level playing field can only benefit the
people. China remains politically tightly controlled, but it went from poverty to
wealth by opening its borders (and its economic sectors) to all who wanted to do
business.

As to the political, I’ve long argued a parliamentary system may well suit the
Philippine culture better, in what, I venture, would be a more democratic system. No
feudal lord to dictate (an elected president is that in his unchallengeable term) but a
first amongst equals chosen by those equals and as easily removed by those equals.
And probably a federal system, given the uniqueness of so many of the societies in
the Philippines and the archipelagic nature of the country. But we’d need better
trained local officials, more honest too. What the local government of Cotabato did to
a $6 billion investment, and what Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada did to business and
the national economy give one reason to question the wisdom of a federal system.

Sadly it looks as though this subject was inadvertently brought to the public by a
president who thinks and says his mind, as we all do, but in a front of a media
always looking for the next headline. I don’t think he was seriously considering
constitutional change as a new policy direction but just a thought to consider.

Unfortunately the exposure the media gave to it means he may be even more
reluctant to go along with the call by so many to amend the economic, and economic
only, provisions of the constitution. The one president who could effect that much-
needed change. Again a reason why a presidency—at least Philippine-style—is not a
good one. One man can override the wishes of thousands more involved than him in
a subject. Over 85 percent of businessmen we surveyed want the economy fully
opened up by constitutional change. What’s frightening though is that according to a
Pulse Asia survey, more than half (61 percent) of Filipinos have not heard, read or
watched anything about the resolution filed by Speaker Belmonte that would amend
the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Worse, of the 39 percent aware of
the resolution, a huge 36 percent was undecided.
The results of these surveys tell the President the bosses he says he represents are
behind him if he supports the amendment of the economic provisions the Speaker
has suggested. So his reluctance to support Belmonte’s resolution despite growing
calls from the business groups and ordinary citizens could further affect his
(declining) popularity and his political capital, for effecting needed reform in the
remainder of his term.

Congress sees the wisdom of bringing in greater levels of investment and integrating
the Philippines more into the world’s economy. As it now stands, the constitutional
restrictions will make it difficult for the country to be part of the Trans Pacific
Partnership agreement.

The Speaker’s solution is not what I’d want, and what should really be done, which is
to properly bring the Constitution into the modern world. And to have it state
general policy, not specific directives, as a constitution should. But doing that would
be a Sisyphean task with little chance of success. Belmonte’s solution is simple: Just
add the words “unless otherwise provided by law.” Then whether we should really
change them can be argued openly in the halls of Congress. One by one. The Left can
have their day, and if they can convince their brethren they can maintain restrictions
but at least each item could be argued as to its relevance today.

I see no fear of the discussion in Congress being hijacked into political change. Senate
President Drilon and House Speaker Belmonte control enough majority and have
made it clear they won’t have any part of it. The President needs to join them, and us.