Beyond federalism, ConCom’s notable reforms

Beyond and apart from its controversial federalism proposals, the consultative committee (ConCom) nonetheless deserves credit for crafting notable reforms that can be seriously discussed and eventually adopted now or in the future, whenever constitutional amendments or revisions are at hand.

Let me briefly outline some. First, in Article I of its draft constitution, the ConCom defined our “National Territory” in clearer language, unmistakably upholding our sovereignty and sovereign rights in the South China Sea, thus: “[The Philippines] has sovereignty over islands and features outside its archipelagic baselines pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations, and the judgments of competent international courts or tribunals.”

Moreover, our country “has sovereign rights over that maritime expanse beyond its territorial sea to the extent reserved to it by international law, as well as over its extended continental shelf, including the Philippine Rise.”

And, without directly mentioning our claim over Sabah but implicitly alluding to it, the ConCom’s draft stressed that our country “likewise has sovereignty over other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.”

This definition of our national territory should calm down even those who attack the Duterte administration for alleged timidity in asserting our arbitral maritime victory over China, and the current and previous administrations’ alleged neglect in pushing for our “historic right or legal title” over Sabah.

Second, in its Article II, “Declaration of Principles and State Policies,” the draft unequivocally clarifies, “The government is the protector of the people and the Federal Republic” while the “Armed Forces of the Philippines shall secure the sovereignty of the Republic and the integrity of its national territory.”

The foregoing replaces the ambiguous “declaration” of the present Charter that says, “The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.” This provision is being misused by political adventurers to justify a military coup against supposedly abusive civilian regimes.

Third, Article III, the “Bill of Rights,” starts with a major amplification: “The rights under this article are demandable against the state and nonstate actors, and their enforcement shall be consistent with international standards.”

This is significant because, under our prior constitutions, the Bill of Rights was traditionally demandable and enforceable only against the state and state actors. We now know that there are “nonstate actors”—like large multinational companies, international organizations, some local conglomerates and even powerful individuals—who/which can and do violate fundamental rights, especially of the poor and the weak.

Fourth, recognizing our people’s right to prosperity and wellbeing, “Social and Economic Rights” as well as “Environmental and Ecological Rights” are expressly enumerated and cherished in the draft.

Fifth, to correct injustices in precipitate acquittals, the draft provides clear exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, “where the offended party is deprived of due process or where there is a finding of mistrial, or when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion …”

Sixth, for the first time in our constitutional history, the draft contains a definition of “political dynasty” and self-executing prohibitions for the members thereof from running for, or being appointed to, or for being declared ineligible for a public office.

Seventh, in line with worldwide trends to propel the economy, the draft retains the nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Charter but allows the legislature—taking into account the evolving national interest—to change the ownership percentages as well as the management and control prerogatives that can be allowed to foreigners.

Eighth, the various methods of amendment or revision are worded simply and clearly, especially the separate voting requirements in the bicameral legislative branch.

There are some more well-conceived reforms, but my space is limited. I will take them up at another time.

Comments to [email protected]