Charter Change in the Philippines: Pros and Cons

This form is trending in Facebook and other Social media platforms. The people’s initiative is one of the modes of amending or revising the Constitution, as provided by Article XVII, Section 2. It allows the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through a petition signed by at least 12% of the total registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3%. However, this mode has never been successfully used in the Philippines, due to the lack of an enabling law and the high requirements for signatures and ratification.

The Philippines is once again facing the issue of charter change, or the process of amending or revising the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The current administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is pushing for charter change to shift the form of government from unitary to federal, among other reforms. However, this move is facing opposition from some sectors of society, who question the timing, legality, validity, and motive of the proposal. They also argue that charter change is not the priority of the people amid the pandemic and the economic crisis.
 
In this blog post, I will discuss the pros and cons of the three articles in the 1987 Philippine Constitution that are being proposed to change or amend. These are:
 
Article XII, which deals with the national economy and patrimony.
Article XVII, which deals with the amendments or revisions of the Constitution.
Article X, which deals with the local government.
 
Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony
The proposed changes in Article XII would ease the restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in specific industries, such as natural resources, mass media, education, and land. The charter change proposal envisions adding the phrase “as may be provided by law” to at least 7 sections of the Constitution. This would allow Congress to pass enabling laws that would relax the restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in order to boost foreign investments.
 
PROS:

Lifting foreign investment restrictions could improve FDI inflows into the Philippines, particularly in the areas restricted in the Philippine Constitution (e.g. mining, utilities, mass media, and education). At least one international study suggests that efforts to remove ownership restrictions could help boost net FDI inflows by up to 78%.
 
Increasing foreign investments could create more jobs, spur economic growth, enhance competitiveness, and foster technology transfer and innovation. Foreign investors could also bring in more capital, expertise, and market access to the Philippines.
 
Relaxing the restrictions on foreign ownership and investment would give more flexibility and autonomy to Congress to enact laws that would respond to the changing economic conditions and needs of the country. It would also allow the Philippines to align its policies with international standards and best practices.
 
CONS:

Easing the restrictions on foreign ownership and investment could undermine the sovereignty and national interest of the Philippines. Foreign investors could exploit the country’s natural resources, influence the media and public opinion, and dominate the education sector. They could also threaten the security and stability of the country, especially in times of conflict or crisis.
 
Opening up the economy to foreign investors could worsen the inequality and poverty in the Philippines. Foreign investors could take advantage of the cheap labor and lax regulations in the country, and evade taxes and social responsibilities. They could also displace local businesses and industries, and create unfair competition and monopoly.
 
Adding the phrase “as may be provided by law” to the Constitution could give too much power and discretion to Congress to pass laws that would favor foreign investors over the Filipino people. It could also open the door to corruption and political interference in the economic policies of the country.
 

Article XVII: Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution
The proposed changes in Article XVII would allow the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution at any time. The current provision states that Congress can only propose amendments or revisions upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, and that such amendments or revisions shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.
 
PROS:

Allowing Congress to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution at any time could make the process of constitutional reform more efficient and timely. It could also enable Congress to address the urgent and emerging issues that need constitutional amendments or revisions, such as the shift to federalism, the political and electoral reforms, and the human rights and social justice issues.
 
Giving Congress the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution at any time could also make the process of constitutional reform more democratic and participatory. It could allow Congress to consult and engage with the people and various stakeholders in the process of proposing and ratifying the amendments or revisions. It could also ensure that the amendments or revisions reflect the will and aspirations of the people.
 
CONS:

Allowing Congress to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution at any time could make the process of constitutional reform more prone to abuse and manipulation. It could also enable Congress to propose and ratify self-serving and detrimental amendments or revisions, such as the extension of the term of the current administration, the removal of the term limits and the anti-dynasty provisions, and the weakening of the checks and balances and the accountability mechanisms in the Constitution.
 
Giving Congress the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution at any time could also make the process of constitutional reform more chaotic and divisive. It could create confusion and uncertainty among the people and the various sectors of society, as they would not know when and what amendments or revisions would be proposed and ratified. It could also trigger political and social unrest and instability, as the people and the various sectors of society would resist and oppose the amendments or revisions that they deem unacceptable or harmful.
 

Article X: Local Government
The proposed changes in Article X would shift the form of government from unitary to federal, giving more autonomy and power to the subnational units, such as regions, provinces, or states. The charter change proposal envisions creating a federal system of government, where the powers and resources of the central government would be shared with the subnational units. The subnational units would have their own constitutions, laws, and officials, and would be responsible for their own affairs, such as health, education, and infrastructure.
 
PROS:

Shifting to a federal system of government could promote regional development and reduce the inequality and poverty in the Philippines. It could empower the subnational units to manage their own resources and affairs, and to address their own needs and priorities. It could also allow the subnational units to harness their own potentials and opportunities, and to compete and cooperate with each other.
 
Shifting to a federal system of government could also enhance democracy and participation in the Philippines. It could foster a sense of identity and belonging among the people and the subnational units, and to respect and celebrate their diversity and plurality. It could also encourage the people and the subnational units to be more involved and accountable in the governance and development of their own areas.
 
CONS:

Shifting to a federal system of government could entail huge costs and challenges for the Philippines. It could require a massive overhaul of the existing political, administrative, and fiscal structures and systems of the country. It could also create duplication, confusion, and conflict among the different levels and branches of government. It could also increase the bureaucracy and the public spending of the country.
 
Shifting to a federal system of government could also exacerbate the problems and issues in the Philippines. It could worsen the political and economic inequality and disparity among the subnational units, as some would be richer and more powerful than others. It could also intensify the political and social divisions and tensions among the people and the subnational units, as some would seek more autonomy and even secession from the central government.

My Point-of-view

Charter change is a complex and controversial issue that has implications for the future of the Philippines. It is not a simple matter of changing a few words or phrases in the Constitution, but a matter of changing the fundamental principles and values that guide the governance and development of the country. It is also not a matter of choosing between the pros and cons of the proposed changes, but a matter of weighing the trade-offs and risks involved in the process and outcome of the constitutional reform.
 
Therefore, charter change should not be pursued hastily or arbitrarily, but carefully and deliberately. It should not be driven by the interests or agenda of a few, but by the needs and aspirations of the many. It should not be done without the consent or participation of the people, but with their informed and active involvement. It should not be based on false or misleading claims, but on factual and credible evidence.
 
Ultimately, charter change should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. The end goal is not to change the Constitution, but to improve the lives of the Filipino people. The end goal is not to create a new system of government, but to create a better society for all. The end goal is not to divide the country, but to unite it.