Why the Constitution should not be amended
In a previous column, I said I have no objection allowing President Aquino another term by amending the Constitution if that will prevent Vice President Jejomar Binay from becoming president. But I am sure millions of Filipinos, me included, do not approve of Charter change to clip the powers of the Supreme Court (as President Aquino wants) or to allow foreigners to own land in the Philippines (as some congressmen have proposed) or to shift to a federal system of government (as Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III has suggested).
The high tribunal is the only defense of the people against an abusive chief executive or a greedy Congress. Look what happened when President Ferdinand Marcos made the Supreme Court a lapdog during his term or when members of Congress were allowed to run amuck with the people’s money.
It has often been said that the Supreme Court is already the weakest of the three branches of government. It has no police force or military to enforce its decisions. When the executive or legislative branches choose not to obey its decisions, it can do nothing but cite them for contempt, which it also cannot enforce without police power.
Had the high court not declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional, the theft of the people’s money would still be continuing today. And President Aquino wants to circumvent that decision by having Congress redefine what “savings” means when it is so easy to look at the dictionary to find its meaning.
That is why the Philippines is still a very poor nation in spite of the alleged economic growth. Instead of their taxes being used to serve the people, they are being stolen by public servants.
The President’s desire to clip the powers of the high court is obviously in retaliation to the two recent decisions against his administration. He is obviously frustrated that he can no longer transfer funds to where they are needed. That is understandable, but that is not the fault of the high court but of the executive branch. Under the direction of the President, the Department of Budget and Management prepares the annual budget that it submits to Congress for enactment. Why does it allocate insufficient funds for some projects and offices but allocate too much for others, thus necessitating the transfer of funds?
The tribunal only interprets the laws passed by Congress. If the law is clear, there won’t be any need for the high court to interpret it. So who’s fault is it?
On the proposal of some congressmen to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution, including allowing foreigners to own land in the Philippines, in order to encourage foreign investment and make the economy grow, why is the administration boasting that we have achieved economic growth, allegedly the highest in Asia? That economic growth was achieved under the present Constitution, so why change it? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
There is an acute “hunger” for land in the Philippines. As we are witnessing, Filipinos will kill and die for land. The many revolts in our history were caused by landless Filipinos desiring to own land. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program was enacted to distribute big landed estates to landless farmers. The Philippines is a small country while its population is exploding. There are millions of Filipinos who have resorted to squatting because they cannot afford to buy land on which to build their homes. Yet congressmen want to allow foreigners to own what little land is left here.
What are the lawmakers’ reasons for wanting to allow foreigners to own land here? To encourage foreign companies to invest here, they say. But foreign companies are already allowed by the Constitution to lease land for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. That is almost the same as owning it. In fact, many foreign companies are already doing it. So why change the Constitution?
On the proposal to shift to a federal form of government to boost local autonomy, the proponents obviously want to imitate the American federal system. But Filipino politicians are different from American politicians. Our local politicians are more like the medieval feudal lords, petty tyrants enslaving the people. Look at some of the politicians controlling some provinces. They have private armies that sow terror in their territories and secret police that assassinate their own citizens. Given a little power, even some barangay officials are transformed into petty tyrants.
A federal form of government will exacerbate all these. This is happening even in the United States. In such an enlightened nation, some local sheriffs and mayors behave like feudal lords. Some Filipino local politicians are already behaving like that. We should not make it worse by shifting to a federal form of government.
