Constitutional amendment and development – Many proposed amendments – Part II

Proposals for constitutional change are many as they are proposed by various sectors for different reasons. The major proposals are reviewed below including the underlying motives behind them.

Amend the economic provisions of the constitution. The constitutional restrictions on foreign capital have caused a low level of foreign investments inflow compared to other countries. Recognition of this problem is now more widely acknowledged than before.

A much larger inflow of foreign capital will raise the country’s economic growth. Countries that encourage the entry of large amounts of foreign capital have long surpassed us in economic performance. And new countries that are overtaking our economic growth are in fact bringing in larger inflows of foreign capital into their economy.

Adopt a parliamentary system to replace the current presidential system. There is a significant following (including former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo) in the current Congress who favors reversal of the political system to a parliamentary system of government.

This change requires a fundamental change in the governance of the country since the executive and the legislative branches will be fused under one branch. Under the current system of check and balance, the presidential system could result in gridlock because of the conflict between the president and the legislature. Such is not possible under a parliamentary setup.

The Constitutional Convention of 1972 (chaired by Diosdado Macapagal) adopted the parliamentary system. Ferdinand Marcos revised it to suit his martial law framework. He adopted a variant of a presidential-parliamentary system patterned more after De Gaulle’s model of the French system.

In the French model, a strong president (Marcos) enjoyed substantial powers even though a prime minister (Cesar Virata) guided the cabinet and legislature. This was the government when the EDSA revolution against Marcos toppled his government in 1986.

There is nothing new in the proposal for a parliamentary system.

Adopt a federal system of government. This proposal is a radical departure from the presidential and unitary system of government. A federal government cedes most powers of policy making to the second layer of government – the regional or state governments.

This means that should the federal structure be adopted, the national government will undergo enormous downsizing. At the same time, regional governments will become more powerful structures and new institution building at that level will have to be undertaken.

In the American model of federation, the central (or federal) government has powers of setting foreign policy, national defense, and commercial policy. The American model of federal government has grown to include the exercise of power over fiscal, monetary, and social policies.

The federal system proposal is supported by many local political leaders who are most likely to gain from a new structure. The trend toward greater local autonomy – even with the passage of the local autonomy act – continues to create demand for independence from the central government in fiscal, development, and police powers.

Proponents continue to emphasize that most decisions emanate from the central government and they want to change this forever. Through the years, the government had regionalized many of the decision-making powers of the central government.

Local government leaders want more political power. They want economic policies to be devolved to regional state governments. Presumably they would also want this regional state to have its own state constitution. The regional grouping obviously would be made up of similarly situated and geographically contiguous provinces.

Those provinces from the remote islands, especially those from Mindanao, and some major islands in the Visayas; would see a federal system as bringing huge benefits in terms of policies to help themselves.

Sponsors of this amendment further argue that the regional competition would be fostered to make regional development move faster as they become independent of the central authority. They argue that this would enhance greater diversity as well as faster development of the regions.

But this argument fails to appreciate the fact that even with such an amendment, the distribution of powers between central and federal governments is still to be determined. And this would bring about a confrontation of wills on how those powers would be distributed and shared.

Another big problem is how to divide the country into different political units. It is very similar to the problem of redistricting at the precinct levels. Such an issue is not trivial but very divisive for a nation.

Adopt a unicameral system of legislature. Some who want a simplification of the system of government prefer a single legislative chamber whether the system of government is presidential or parliamentary. Proponents see the Senate as an unnecessary and expensive filter to the passage of laws. So they would simply want to abolish the Senate and have a single national assembly.

A variant of this is a Senate with no political power, similarly empowered mainly to rule on non-political and international matters but not domestic laws. It is having a Senate similar to the House of Lords or Senates of other democracies.

Such bodies have essentially honorific roles in government. They deal with matters of state that are not considered political. Such a ceremonial senate composed of wise persons is as big a waste of resources.

The nation seems to be torn between a seesaw battle between a unicameral and a bicameral assembly. Before independence, there was a unicameral Philippine Assembly, whose bills were approved by the US governor-general.

Then, when the 1935 constitution was passed to implement the independence law, the country initially had a unicameral National Assembly. But Manuel Quezon used the bicameral assembly in part to amend the constitution as a rider to his amendment so that he could run for a second term as president of the Commonwealth government.

The post-martial law government under Marcos (from 1981-1986) had a unicameral parliament, the Batasang Pambansa. But the present Cory Constitution (1987) restored the Senate and the old name of the Congress of the Philippines. This is like playing a game of musical chairs!

Mixed amendments. The various suggestions for amendments are not mutually exclusive. For instance, all those who favor more systemic changes in the constitutional structure also want to deal with the restrictive provisions of the constitution.

A smart amendment is that articulated by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno who proposes to introduce a provision in the constitution to enable lower appellate courts to render judgment with finality over certain classes of legal suits. Such a provision will relieve the Supreme Court of the duty to be the final arbiter of all suits, a great burden on the justice system.

The suggestions for a federal and a parliamentary system, or even the issue of unicameral versus bicameral legislative bodies, are not mutually exclusive issues. There could be combinations of these features that some proponents might even favor.

Finally, many active politicians seek constitutional change as a smoke screen to get the amendments that they want most to have. The lifting of term limits for elective politicians is probably their main agenda to amend the constitution.

Conclusion. Most of the amendments for broader constitutional change tend to repeat previous experiments and debates on the best system of government. Yet, it is only the amendment of the economic restrictions that seem to promise immediate calculable benefits. –Gerardo P. Sicat (The Philippine Star)

Visit this site for more information, feedback and commentary: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/gpsicat/