The idea that Charter change is the key to unlocking the Philippines’ full potential, or to solving many of its most intractable problems, is a powerful one; it recurs every now and then, precisely because of the simplicity of its appeal. But it is a false simplicity. Charter change as many in the political class define it will prove to be difficult and complicated—and it may create more problems than it may solve.
This is not to say that the 1987 Constitution should not be revised or amended. But taking history’s lessons into account, we should recognize that the success of any attempt will be determined not so much by political will as by political timing.
One of the crucial innovations of the post-Marcos Constitution was the imposition of term limits, including a single six-year term for the presidency (a faint echo of the original 1935 Charter). The failure of the concerted efforts to change the Charter during the late Ramos years and in the last years of the Arroyo administration can be explained by their inability to generate popular support—an inability based directly on popular suspicion that the presidents at the time wanted to skirt the six-year limit. Any attempt at Charter change, then, must deal with that well-founded sense, that politicians if given a chance will move to extend their hold on power.
Those who wish to change some of the Constitution’s economic provisions (the limits on foreign ownership being at the top of their wish list) may question the continuing relevance of this public sense or chafe at its scope of influence, but it is reality. Perhaps the best chance to amend or revise the Charter was immediately after Edsa 2, in 2001, when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enjoyed the privilege of running for the presidency in her own right, and for a full term. (In other words, there was no need at that time to extend her stay in Malacañang.) Today, some proponents of Charter change see President Aquino’s continuing popularity, and his consistent position against any constitutional change, as the guarantee that the provisions on term limits won’t be lifted.
We do not know if the President shares their fine sense of irony. He has said again and again that he does not see the need to amend the Constitution; he will certainly not lead any effort to change it. Part of his reasoning must be that the reforms he has started to put in place, and which have earned him popular approval and international praise, did not need constitutional change to work, so why change?
Perhaps part is sentimental; the present Constitution is one of his mother’s legacies. Corazon Aquino, using her powers as the head of a revolutionary government, convened the Constitutional Commission in 1986 and ushered in a new constitutional order in 1987. He may be loath to tamper with one of his mother’s chief achievements.
Does the Constitution need amending or revising? That is a different question, to which many Filipinos, even those most suspicious of politicians’ motives, will answer in the affirmative. The lack of a run-off election provision has meant that no majority president has been elected since 1986. The lameness of the anti-political dynasty provision has condemned many parts of the country to a quarter-century of dynastic rule. The experiment that is the Judicial and Bar Council seems to have failed. And the list goes on.
Unlike in 1986, however, amending or revising the Constitution today is necessarily an open-ended process. When a constitutional convention is elected or the chambers of Congress are convened as a constituent assembly, the members will answer only to themselves; not even the President can impose his own schedule on them. In short: Despite promises to limit Charter change to specific provisions, everything in the Constitution becomes negotiable when a ConCon or a ConAss begins its work.
Perhaps the best approach today is to try the US formula, as recommended by constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas, SJ: File specific Charter-amendment legislation in Congress. That would limit the scope of any change, but at the same time meet the Constitution’s own more stringent standards for amending the Charter. Any other approach will create more problems than it will solve.