Pascual, Raymond A.

Professor Michael Amor Finals: Politics, Governance, and Citizenship

BSA 1-5 March 23, 2020

1. On March 16, 2017, Baguhin ang Estado Movement (BEM) started gathering signatures for
the purpose of changing the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Two years thereafter, BEM filed
a petition before the Commission on Election (COMELEC) to urge the latter to conduct a
plebiscite to that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Philippine
Constitution pursuant to the Initiative and Referendum Act.

BEM was able to obtained 8,537,026 signatures which represent more than 12% of all
registered voters in the country, with each legislative district represented by at least 3% of
its registered voters.
The COMELEC had verified the signatures of the 8.5 million individuals.

The petition changes certain provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly the
form of government. Decide.
Based on the given situation of the first question, the Baguhin and Estado Movement
(BEM) from the very start, aims to change the certain provisions of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, particularly the form of Government. Although they have met the qualifications
needed, they’ve mistaken the methods needed in order change the entirety of the Constitution.
The BEM did the methods which falls under Article 17 Section 2, paragraphs 1 which states that
“Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein.”. In the given situation, Baguhin and Estado Movement (BEM) did the third (3rd)
method under the same article and section; by the people directly, through initiative upon petition
of the required number of registered voters. That no new constitution can be changed without the
cast of plebiscite after the certification of the Commission Of Elections. And based on the result
of the first question, BEM was able to acquire 8,537,026 signatures out of the 8.5 million
individuals which implies of more than 12% of all registered voters and 3% coming from each
legislative district. Hence; fulfills the requirement from the first paragraph of section 2 under
Article 17. Although, the said methods are considered as invalid since BEM’s ways and methods
doesn’t match their goal, which is the revision of the entirety of the Constitution. What they seek
is revision of the entirety of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and not by mere methods that fall
 under amendments. By definition of the two terms, Revision broadly implies a change that alters a
basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the
system of checks and balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety
of the Constitution. And as for this given situation, it is changing the form of the government. On
the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering
the basic principle involved, which is not applicable when it comes to changing the entirety of the
constitution. Revision generally affects several provisions of the Constitution; while amendment
generally affects only the specific provision being amended. In conclusion, what the BEM did
was the methods that falls under amending certain provisions but is not applicable when it comes
to changing the entirety of the Constitution. And if they seek so, they must refer on Article 17
Section 1 which states; “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or A constitutional convention.”

References/ Links used:

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
https://pia.gov.ph/branches-of-govt
http://villasislawcenter.com/revision-vs-amendment/

2. Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN) submitted to MTRCB tapes of its TV program

“Pillars of Faith.” Seven (7) of the program episodes were marked as “X” or not suitable for
public exhibition. MTRCB said that the episodes submitted were offensive and it constitute an
attack to other religions.

3ABN argued that they are exercising their religious freedom, hence, the MTRCB erred in
marking the episodes as “X”. Decide
In the given case scenario, the 3 Angels Broadcasting Network did exercise their right of
expression as stated in Article 3 Section 4 which states that; 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. And their right with regards to their belief,
which is absolute as stated in Article Section 5 which implies that; No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
However, the marking of the seven (7) episodes of MTRCB on their program is also valid and
plausible to discuss. That even though the “Pillows of Faith” show the way of exercising their
 religious belief, they’ve mistaken to limit their freedom and right to act according to one’s belief,
thus making their episodes subject to the violation against the regulation and prohibition for the
protection of society, being part under the Free Exercise Clause on the latter part of Article 3
Section 5. That if MTRCB wouldn’t mark as (X) and would continue such episodes, like the 7
episodes of Pillows of Faith, the possibility of religious quarrels would be inevitable, thus would
lead to the disruption of peace, in which the Article 3 Section 5 aims to prevent. And if such
chaos would continue to prevail, the state won’t be able solve the primary problem as long as the
problem is religious matter, based on Article 2 Section 6; which states that the separation of
Church and State shall be inviolable.

References/ Links used:

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

3. Comment on the recent action of the House of Representatives approving a bill allowing for
100% foreign ownership in power, transport and communications sectors
As stated in the news article of Philstar Global, House Bill 78 seeks to amend the Public
Service Act and delineates between the terms public service and public utility, which the 1987
Constitution prohibits foreign ownership of. The nation's charter sets a limit of 40 percent foreign
ownership on similar services and utilities. By definition, public service and utility refers to the
system of telecommunication, transportation, and power industry. If one would look at the
plausible advantages and benefits it may bring on the Philippines, one would surely choose to
approve this law, as what the House of Representatives did. The said amendment of the bill
would implicate on the possibility of opening more job opportunities in the country, wherein the
employment rate and job opportunities aren’t that decent. Surely, this would provide for
unemployed and underemployed people income. And since money is a crucial necessity in order
to purchase basic goods, people wouldn’t hesitate to seek job and work. This in turn would surely
lessen the probable cause of crime rate our country seems to face every day, since the common
issue as to why those criminals do such acts is because of money. Disregarding the law in order to
fill something to their stomachs. Another aspect it may implicate is the ease of transportation in
which, as already explicitly mentioned in the bill, would make our known and traditional form of
transportation to be change, fixed, or even upgraded. And surely most of the people, especially
those who are living within the vicinity of the Metro, would be in favor of this benefit not just for
their own but also for others, since the heavy mass traffic is one of the main reasons why certain
job and other opportunities are missed. The amendment of the bill also seeks to ease the
accessibility in terms of telecommunication; wireless means and forms of communication.
Although our country can be classified as one that’s “always with the trend”, the way of
communication we know now would surely be improved. And once foreign countries would
control this system, easy access to the internet would also mean easy access to the availability of
information. With all these possible benefits, our country would surely attract foreign investors;
hence boost the market of the Philippines, especially in term of industry. In relation to that, is the
possibility of other unsaid benefits may be spilled into other sectors in the Philippines that we
aren’t fond of. In the article of Lamudi entitled “Pros and Cons: Foreign Property Ownership in
the Philippines”, According to experts, this is due in part to the country’s restrictive business
climate, particularly when it comes to foreign ownership of properties. This in turn will allowing
foreigners to own land for industrial and commercial purposes in which will benefit the
manufacturing sector, then will boost employment opportunities for many Filipinos.
However, as I’ve been told, in every head of the coin there’s always a tail behind it.
Some may won’t seek it, for it doesn’t indicate the value of the coin, whether it values as 1, 5, or
10 peso. People wouldn’t bother to look at it. And this toxic trait can be correlated to us,
Filipinos.
Not knowing the possible effects it may cause to those who are unable to keep up with
the current status that we have, what more could they be possibly experience if foreign control
would be at its maximum percent?. That even though the bill would implicate advantages to
some, there will always be disadvantages that will be experienced by many. The said possible
improvements to public utilities would surely be monopolized by those who wield power and
have distorted hearts who only seeks self-satisfaction and benefit, disregarding the others. That
instead, the said public utilities would be “of use by the public” some would take advantages and
use these in order to gain money. Gain money from the people. And still some people are
confused by the word “thievery” and mistaken it as “Business”. The said amendment of the bill
would surely implicate the purchasing power of the basic good and commodities that we know,
leaving those low income consumers once more on the lower level of the hierarchy. With all
these possible implications, surely it would cause some fear of labor violations. Plausible
violations on national sovereignty in which the 100% foreign control would bring.
As far as I’m concerned, the Filipino people can manage on its own, even though our
country is known for its greatness on agriculture and aquaculture. It just so happens that those
who sits in the throne don’t know the possible implications of the decisions they make in a larger
scale. They only see those things in which people can derive from in a small scale on a short term
period. Seeing only the metro, and not the bigger picture.
 Our country had enough of foreign imperialism, it’s time to do what our heroes
ought us to do from the very start; embrace our national identity and improve our economy
in solidarity.

References/ Links used:

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/03/10/1999714/house-oks-100-percent-foreign-ownership-
power-transport-and-communications
https://www.lamudi.com.ph/journal/pros-cons-foreign-property-ownership-philippines/