PULANGCO, KATHLEEN E.

PA 131
2015-14279 REFLECTION PAPER

Change is Coming: A reflection paper about Charter Change

As the rule of the land, a constitution provides scope for good government while
imposing limitations on the powers of the governors. It assures a continuity in the society
beyond the limited term of public officials and the system of government in place. Thus, in order
to be an effective barometer of continuity, the constitution should be accommodating of some
changes and must not remain static. It should be dynamic in a sense that it gives breathing
room to address the needs of our people in different times. Constitutional reform in the
Philippines, also known as Charter Change refers to the political and legal processes needed to
amend the Constitution.
The Forum on Charter Change organized by the UP Samahan Tungo sa Progresibong
Administrasyon (UP STPA) tackled the basics of Charter Change: its definition, purpose and the
processes it undergoes; and its implications.
In his talk on Charter Change 101, Atty. Florin Hilbay discussed the difference between
proposing amendments and proposing revisions. Amendments refer to changes that do not
affect the overall structure and basic principles of the Constitution. For instance, changing the
provision on the term limit of the President is an amendment. On the other hand, revisions are
changes that involve alterations in the structure. Overhaul of the government structure to
federalism is a revision.
He presented the analogy that introducing Constitutional amendments is like making
house improvements such as changing the furnitures, and/or moving the windows. Parallel to
this, making revisions is like renovating the house from a bungalow to a two-storey house.
Under the Article XVII of the Constitution, there are three ways of changing the
Constitution. Changes are proposed by a Constitutional Assembly (Con-Ass) or a Constitutional
Convention (Con-Con), or through a People’s Initiative.
Congress, through a vote of three-fourths of all members, can convene into a Con-Ass.
This body can propose both amendments and revisions. A Con-Con is made up of elected
delegates and can propose both amendments and revisions. Congress, by a vote of two-thirds
of its members, can call for an election of its members. A People’s Initiative can only propose
amendments through a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters,
according to Article XVII of the Constitution. The process is provided in Republic Act 6735 or the
Initiative and Referendum Act.

Once the proposals are “approved” in the first stage – regardless of whether done
through a Con-Ass or Con-Con – these will be subject to a national plebiscite. A national
plebiscite is an exercise in the "power of the people" when it comes to the law. Amendments or
revisions are only valid once ratified by a majority of votes, according to Article XVII of the
Constitution. The schedule of the national plebiscite, to be set by Congress, should be within 60
to 90 days after the body approves the proposal.

Since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, past administrations have attempted to
make some changes in the supreme and fundamental Law of the land as a means to address
its flaws and “improve” the condition of the country. The Duterte administration is pushing for a
Charter Change to make way for a federal form of government. With the Congress behind him,
the process for doing so is taking place.

Hearings in the House of Representatives have given a glimpse at some of the proposed
changes to the 1987 Constitution such as ​limited protection for free speech​ and the possible
abolition of the ​Office of the Vice President​, Office of the Ombudsman, and Judicial and Bar
Council.
There is also a proposal for the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to become a
fiscally-autonomous constitutional commission. The CHR was criticized strongly by members of
the House who during budget deliberations voted to reduce the CHR's 2018 budget to P1,000.
While the Constitution is not flawless, is there really a need to revise and change the
Constitution now?
I firmly believe that what the country really needs is not charter change but character
change. The Duterte administration is giving us the illusion that constitutional change through
constituent assembly proposing for a federalized government will solve our national problems
and spur development outside the country's capital. The truth is that federalism-parliamentary
system is not the panacea to our problems.
Two of the major and recurring problems facing the country today is bad governance and
corruption. In the words of Atty. Hilbay, “these problems are about people, not (necessarily) of
political structure or political consciousness, not (necessarily) of political institutions. They are
subjective, not objective concerns. People will not wake up to a new constitution that will
magically confer upon them the ability to govern themselves well or made them less corrupt.”
If the problem is in the people, corrupt politicians would continue to cater under a new
Constitution, to the greed of an equally corrupt electorate empowered and maintained by a
dynastic-driven brand of politics. Federalism will only remain to be a theoretical concept that will
only lead to disillusionment.
Federalism is not a cure-all to our ills as people, nor is it a perfect system. Although it
may be an answer to the country’s lingering troubles rooted in Philippine society’s multi-cultural
nature, it is important to note that such a shift should not be done hastily. Being a complex and
immensely customizable form of government, federalism does take time to be designed and
realized. The decision to federalize should reflect the will of the Filipino people to unite amidst
their diversity. Otherwise, it would merely be a cure that might be worse than the disease.
While I believe that there is no need to change the Constitution in its entirety when an
amendment of laws would suffice, I also believe that it is timely to review the Constitution in light
of determining whether or not it should be changed to better address the situation of Filipinos
today.
To echo the words of Claro M. Recto, “We are the Constitution in the sense that it can
live only in us, through us, for us, and because of us. The best amendment of the Constitution
would be the amendment of our lives, the amendment of our attitudes, outlook and actions, the
realization that we are free men, and the resolution to live and act as free men”