Reexamining the Constitution, July 8, 2001

NOW that we’re again thinking of amending the Constitution, I would like, if I may, to offer the following proposals:

Reinstate the two-party system. Every President of the Philippines elected under the present multi-party system won only by minority vote. Even Erap got only less than 40 per cent of the total votes cast, with the other 60 per cent distributed among his rivals. The current system has only confused and diluted the people’s will.

Abolish the party-list membership. It violates the rule of the majority as a basic principle of republicanism. The so-called “marginalized” groups should unite as one party to compete on its own with other parties instead of being privileged to enter Congress by the back door. Moreover, party-list nominees are “blindly” elected without the people knowing about their character and credentials.

Require academic qualifications for all elective officials like appointive officials. This will prevent the pollution of the public service with ignoramuses and, possibly, even morons. Look at the IQ of some of our high elective officials today and lately. Mere literacy is not enough, and neither is showbiz stardom or broadcast notoriety.

Restore the senatorial districts. Election at large for senators has become too expensive and prone to irregularities more easily detected in smaller electoral units. Moreover, some of our present and former senators could not have won if they had run from senatorial districts – Miriam Defensor Santiago was repudiated in her own province. Distance lends enchantment but also conceals the warts.

Remove the term limits for members of Congress and local elective officials. These have only aggravated the problem of political dynasties and enabled inexperienced and incompetent relatives to serve as benchwarmers for their principals. The way some families control constituencies as if they were exclusive fiefdoms stultifies the individual merit and ambitions of outsiders.

Vest in Congress the sole power to impeach, by two-thirds vote of each House, voting separately. Trial shall be conducted by a High Court of Impeachment to be activated when needed and composed of eminent jurists removable by the body itself. Headed by the Chief Justice, it shall rule on legal and factual questions and can convict, without appeal, only by unanimous vote.

Specify the occasions when an Acting President can replace the President. Current interpretation confines the succession to physical or mental incapacity but does not include cases when the President wants to enjoy a respite from official duties, as where he intends to take a vacation abroad or go on a honeymoon. He is entitled to a leave of absence like any other public servant.

Make the prohibition against multiple positions more definite and restrictive.  Persons occupying such positions should be required to refund all illegally collected compensation which could run into millions of pesos without the people’s knowledge or consent. Malacañang, with the apparent toleration of Congress, has ignored the present provision as clearly interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Government contracts in which any member of Congress is “financially interested,” directly or indirectly, should be considered void ab initio. All parties to such agreements should be prosecuted and the legislator benefited should, upon conviction, be expelled. The Ombudsman should act upon complaints for violations of this rule within 30 days from filing.

If Congress extends the President’s proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the extension should also not exceed 60 days instead of being indefinite under the present charter. The President, as commander in chief can, in emergencies, easily pressure Congress into making an open-ended extension that can last for years and impose another dictatorship.

The power of the Senate to concur with treaties and other international agreements should cover executive agreements, which the President may now conclude without such concurrence. At present, the President can simply convert a treaty disapproved by our Senate into an executive agreement, as Theodore Roosevelt did when the US Senate rejected the treaty he concluded with the Dominican Republic.

To make the Judicial and Bar Council more independent, its regular members should not be eligible for reappointment as now allowed. Such members may, in hopes of being rewarded with another term and all its perquisites, submit to the President’s commands to nominate his intended appointees, thus making judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, a mere charade.

The current voting requirement for a declaration of unconstitutionality is by the Supreme Court (a majority of the members who deliberated and voted on the issue) should be discarded. The two-thirds rule under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions is more reasonable and practical. Under the present charter, such declaration can be made by as few as five justices of the Supreme Court, constituting a majority of the quorum of eight.

Clarify the conflict between the claims of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and the exclusive right of the State to its natural resources as claimed in the past and present Constitutions. The recent case against the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act failed to resolve this issue categorically with an inconclusive 7-7 vote. This is too serious a question to be left hanging in the air.

Subject to more suggestions I may take in the future, I will stress here that the whole charter should be rewritten to make it less loquacious. The good written constitution should be limited to fundamental principles, to be implemented by legislation that can be easily changed as the need arises. Every citizen should have a nodding acquaintance at least with the 1987 Constitution. Regrettably, even lawyers hesitate to plow through the copious document because it reads like a codification of trivialities.