The Imperatives of Amending the
Constitution*
By Rep. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
*Based on the author’s presentation before the House of Delegates of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Tacloban City on April 26, 2002
Since its adoption on February 2, 1987, there have been several attempts to amend the 1987 Constitution.
As a matter of fact, five years after its ratification, there were already calls for an amendment. The most
serious attempt took place during the Ramos Administration, but it failed, mainly because of the Supreme
Court ruling in Miriam Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec [G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997], reiterated in PIRMA v.
Comelec [G.R. No. 129745, September 23, 1997].
You will remember that the Supreme Court, in those cases, declared that Republic Act 6735 was inadequate
for the purpose of a people’s initiative on the Constitution, even if it was deemed sufficient for initiatives on
national and local legislation. President Estrada constituted the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional
Reform, bearing the acronym CONCORD, and would have wanted to effect changes in the economic
provisions of the Charter. But this attempt likewise fizzled out.
Proposing changes to the Constitution is fraught with risk. Any attempt to amend the Charter is bound to
be controversial. The proponents are, more often than not, looked upon with suspicion if not outright
distrust. They are immediately branded as opportunists impelled by vested interests. This is a view fanned
by certain quarters, which have unfortunately politicized the issue rather than engage in an intelligent and
well-informed debate on the proposed changes sought.
Despite these hazards, the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, in keeping with its mandate,
continues to deliberate on the issue. The Committee is in receipt of numerous measures relating to Charter
reform. For purposes of clarity, I have categorized these bills and resolutions into four groups: First, those
that seek Congress to constitute itself into a constituent assembly to propose amendments; Second, those
that call for a Constitutional Convention; Third, those that propose specific amendments to the Constitution;
and Fourth, those that seek a referendum or a consultation process before any attempt is made to introduce
amendments to the Constitution.
Even before I became a Congressman, I already had a personal predisposition to Charter amendments. As
an avid student of Constitutional Law, I believe this Constitution can stand improvement. Today, fifteen
years after it had been ratified, it is time to give it a new and closer look, not in the spirit of carping or
disdainful criticism, but in a sincere effort to make it more responsive to the demands of the changing times.
As Justice Winslow once said, “The political or philosophical aphorism of one generation is doubted by the
next and entirely discarded by the third. The race moves forward constantly, and no Canute can stay its
progress.” Accordingly, the fundamental law must be able to adjust to change, conforming itself to the
needs of society, and must be dynamic, if it is to progress and endure.
If we go by the results of an internal survey conducted by the Committee, there is a growing consensus in
Congress that there is an imperative need to introduce changes in the Constitution. Of 220 Congressmen
polled, 115 responded, and of this number, 107 were in favor of Charter reform. The eight who said no to
amendment did so, not because they thought the Constitution was perfect, but because they think it is not
yet the proper time.
On the mode of amendment, a majority preferred that Congress, sitting as a constituent
assembly, introduce the amendments, as opposed to a Constitutional Convention. Those
who prefer a shift to the parliamentary system from our present presidential form of
government enjoyed a slight lead. There were various proposals made in the nature of
specific amendments, but it is encouraging to note that 91% of our respondents favored
changes in the Constitution. In the public consultations we held across the country, we
also noted organized groups, which advocate the establishment of a Federal system of
government, as opposed to the present unitary system.
Prudence dictates that as Chairman of the Committee, I should not let my personal biases
influence my or the decisions of the Committee. I am convinced that any attempt to
introduce changes must not be perceived by the public as being railroaded or orchestrated.
We have learned from the Cha- Cha and Concord experiences that the lack of an honest-togoodness consultation can effectively derail the process. The Committee is, therefore,
committed to go to extreme lengths, if needed, to determine the people’s sentiment.
The element of consultation is, to my mind, the most crucial imperative in any attempt to change the
Constitution. On the heels of such consultation should be a massive information campaign on the specific
changes that may be made. Without these, any attempt is doomed to failure. I have two reasons to support
this argument:
First, the Cha-Cha and the Concord experiences showed that the imperative for Charter reform lies heavily in
convincing the people of the merits of the basic reforms being proposed. Without strong public support,
civil society will mobilize the people to reject it. This was validated by a recent study conducted by the
Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER) on voter’s attitudes toward charter reform. Sixty-nine
percent of the respondents said that they oppose charter change at that time.
However, the study revealed that the people, as a whole, are receptive to charter change
provided they have the necessary information on the matter. People oppose tampering
with the Constitution because they lack the knowledge of the fundamental issues involved.
This was the same finding of the Institute for Popular Democracy, which said that the main
problem we have to contend with is the low level of literacy of the public on the issue
itself.
Thus, if we want to increase the chances of amendment, we must increase public awareness of the issues
involved. We can effectively reverse the trend of public opposition if we provide the public with the
necessary information they require for mature judgment.
Second, the President has indicated her willingness to withdraw her objections to Charter change if there is a
real “national consensus, a consensus among all political leaders” in its favor. The support of Malacañang,
particularly in the area of fund sourcing, hinges on the results of the consultations currently being
undertaken.
We, in the Committee, wish to be guided by the decision of the majority of our people than by the stand of
our national officials. Thus, if the people manifest their desire for Charter reform, then we will file the
appropriate resolution(s) in Congress initiating the amendatory process.
We know, however, that whatever the results of the consultations may be, there will always
be some quarters opposed to the move. They are afraid that opening the Charter to
amendments might result in the loss of several nationalistic provisions found in the
Constitution, such as the provisions on land reform, restrictions on martial law powers, and
several economic provisions.
These argument betrays a total lack of confidence in our people and a complete failure to consider the
lessons of the two EDSA experiences. If there is a lesson to be learned from EDSA, it is that awakened people
can overthrow even a dictatorship and reshape the political order. The vigilance of the people cannot be
underestimated.
The other argument commonly raised against charter change is the matter of cost. I believe, however, that
we cannot place a price tag on a matter as crucial as constitutional change. If we are willing to spend
billions on white elephant flagship projects, then we should be prepared to spend one billion of the
people’s money to reform our society. It is too small a price to pay for our future. Moreover, one billion is
too small an amount when we consider that our annual budget is 700 billion.
At this time, therefore, there is the imperative for the more enlightened sectors of society to re-examine the
Philippine Constitution and to get involved in the intelligent discussion of potential changes in the Charter.
Let me suggest certain points for immediate study and discussion:
First, the 1987 Constitution was framed in the wake of EDSA I by an appointive Constitutional Commission,
which did not have the direct mandate of the people. Although it counted with outstanding members, the
Commission did not have the stature nor the expertise of the Convention of 1934. And admittedly, the
product of the Commission, in many parts, are knee-jerk reactions to the excesses of the Marcos regime.
Second, the 1987 Constitution suffers from infirmities arising from compromises. Some of
the Commissioners readily admit that it is a compromise document. Many of these
compromises resulted in about 50 of its provisions, including major ones which required
enabling laws before they can be implemented. Fifteen years have passed and many of
these enabling laws have yet to see the light of day. Consider the provisions on political
dynasties and absentee voting. My own bills filed in the 11 t h Congress were approved by
the Committee but did not even get to the floor on second reading. I submit that when a
fundamental principle or a state policy is enunciated, the same should be self- executing
and not made to depend on congressional action.
Third, the present Constitution is excessively long. It is, perhaps, the longest Constitution in the world, owing
to the inclusion of provisions that should have been embodied only in implementing statutes to be enacted
by the legislature. The Charter also suffers from verbosity and prolixity. I submit that a Constitution should
be readable and easily comprehensible to the common man.
Fourth, on the specific provisions of the Charter, we concede that there are provisions which are outstanding
and need not be touched. The Bill of Rights is a definite improvement over the 1935 or 1973 Constitutions.
New provisions on the Legislative Department intended to correct defects in the old charters, safeguards
incorporated in the Executive Department to prevent abuses, and judicial independence are among the
salutary provisions we should keep.
Yet, there is clearly a need to re-examine certain provisions, such as:
1. Our form of government. In the consultations we held, one most common proposal is the shift from
presidential to the parliamentary system of government.
2. The centralized unitary system of our government. In a unitary system, the national government is
highly centralized, slow, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of the people in the regions and in local
governments. National government institutions situated in Metro Manila dominate the government of the
whole country. Despite the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991, local governments are still
totally beholden to the national government. This stifles local initiative and development.
3. The political party system and our electoral system.
Our experience with the multi-party system
institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution has been far from satisfactory. More than ever, we are convinced
that if we retain the presidential system, we should return to the two-party system and that the multi-party
system would function best in a parliamentary system.
4. The constitutional commissions. A re-examination of the powers and functions, geared towards the
streamlining of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit
may be in order, to make them effective.
5. The issue of citizenship. It is time we re-examine our policies on citizenship. In this regard, it may be
appropriate to inform you that we, in the House, have already approved a substitute bill providing for the
retention of Philippine citizenship by Filipinos, who may acquire other citizenship abroad.
6. The Judiciary. There are certain quarters in Philippine society who would like to revive the practice of
submitting appoint Tf 0.ion of auingo rev98 Tc 0.5xk870rral8 Holreadwhiche in the regions and in9submitting a87 Co (suo1440
These are only some of the areas in the 1987 Constitution which call for re-examination. More than any
other sector in society, we, as lawyers, should be the most concerned in any attempt to change the Charter.
Let us then get involved!
In closing, let us listen to the words of Senator Claro M. Recto, President of the 1934 Constitutional
Convention:
“I am not an idolater of Constitutions; I do not believe that, once proclaimed, they should forever be carved on
tablets of imperishable stone beyond the reach of impious hands. On the contrary, the people should be allowed
to live with their Constitution, but the caprice of the powerful should not be confused with the anxieties, the
longings, the want and the will of the people.”
Let us then muster our collective will as a nation and make the necessary amendments to the Constitution.
But in doing so, let us not keep it to ourselves. Let us involve each citizen who is a repository of a particle of
sovereignty and let us propel the nation forward.