Grounds for constitutional reform

Title

Creator

Sinco, V. G.

Language

English

Source

Panorama Volume XXI (No. 2) February 1969

Year

1969

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

■ This paper indicates specific parts of the pre sent Constitution of the Philippines that should be changed for improvement. GROUNDS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM The year 1969 marks the 34th anniversary df the ap proval of the Constitution of the Philippines by the Constitutional Convention. This Constitution has served two stages of our national political life, the Common wealth and the Republic. The first was the era of the Commonwealth of the Phil ippines which actually start ed in November, 1933, and ended on July 4, 1946, with a 3-year interruption occa sioned by the Japanese Mi litary Occupation of our country from 1942 to about the month of April, 1945. The second is the present era which started on July 4, 1946, the era of Philippine Independence. The only dif ference between the two eras with respect to our nation’s status under the Constitution is that during the Common wealth period the govern ment of the Philippines, while internally autonomous, had no control over certain matters such as foreign af fairs, public indebtedness, and some emergency prob lems which were placed un der the supervision of the American High Commission er. But since Philippine In dependence was declared, our government has been en joying complete political freedom in all matters. It is, therefore, obvious that we have had sufficient opportunity to observe how the present Constitution has worked in the hands of the Filipino people from 1935 to the present day. It has un dergone a long and conti nuous practical test extend ing over one-third of a cen tury. It has been used by elderly politicians, middleaged leaders, and young pos sessors of power. We may, therefore, ask these questions now: Has February 1969 39 this Constitution been suc cessfully put into effect in the government of the coun try? Has it proved adequate to our needs and conditions? In the light of our expe rience, should this Constitu tion be retained in all res pects? Obviously it is not possible to discuss these ques tions extensively at this time because they involve details that would take more time than what is available on this occasion. But in view of the coming constitutional revision in 1971, we shall in dicate in a general way some basic points affecting the operation of our Constitution during the last 34 years. To understand more close ly the need for revising or retaining parts or all of the provisions of a constitution> it is important that we bear in mind the three essential parts, which every modern democratic constitution must contain. The first is the Bill of Rights which is an enumeration of the rights of every individual, citizen or alien, to be protected in his life, liberty, and property against arbitrary or unconsti tutional action by the govern ment; the second is the pro vision on the organization and principal functions of the government; and the third is the provision on the method of changing or amending the Constitution. I do not believe that there is much to be said about the Bill of Rights in our Constitution now. I do be lieve, however, that practical means be so provided in expressed terms as to give them prompt application and strict enforcement against every violator regardless of his private or public posi tion, his official rank, or his station in society. Our Constitution establishes a democracy; and the Bill of Rights represents an expres sion of the democratic be lief in the dignity of man and the intrinsic worth of human life which should ever be upheld and res pected. It is in respect to the pro visions oi< governmental or ganization and functions that our Constitution certainly needs some overhauling. This is a strong statement, and so it needs an intelligent and thorough discussion when the proper time comes. Panorama But in a general way it may be categorically mentioned on the basis of what we have actually experienced during the last 34 years, that the organization and functions of the office of chief executive and the legislature of the Philippines call for serious alterations for the develop ment of a truly responsive, effective, and honest adminis tration and legislation for the country. In regard to the executive or the Presidency, we have to admit that its powers are broad and extensive. The came observation applies to those of Congress. This le gislative organ is vested with too many powers without any limitation whatever outside of the specific restrictions stated in the Bill of Rights which refer only to indivi dual cases. It should be said that even in this field of restrictions, there are no effective sanctions which give sufficient assurance to the individual or the peo ple against legislative exces ses and abuses to put an end to legislative evils. The vagueness of the extent of the powers of taxation and the police power lends it self to excessive or abusive legislative or executive exer cise of these prerogative pri vileges. It leads to an ir responsible curtailment of in dividual rights for no clear fulfillment of essential pub lic purpose and no reason able assurance of honest execution of declared public policy often used to hide ulterior motives. With these background, we are therefore justified to raise this question: How could we put effective con stitutional safeguards against intentional, fraudulent, or stupid acts of legislative chi canery and official malfea sance committed under forms of legislative authority? In my opinion this could be done to a certain extent by reducing the scope of con gressional authority from a general grant of legislative powers to a grant of care fully enumerated legislative powers analogous in princi ple and purpose to the grant of enumerated powers to the federal Congress und§r the American Constitution. This is precisely an appropriate time for this change because the country has been quite frequently informed in a ge February 1969 41 neral way about the advan tages of the system of decen tralization. In principle de centralization is limitation of national powers and pro per distribution and alloca tion of residuary subjects of authority among local or smaller units of government. We have often heard the oft-quoted statement of Lord Acton which runs: “Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’’ The proof of this statement ap pears quite evident in our country today in which high public officials have openly forgotten the democratic maxim that public office is a public trust and should never, therefore, be used for the enrichment of the office holder, be he a President, a senator, a congressman, a governor, a mayor, or any other office holder. Indeed, it is no longer a secret that a number of Filipinos run for public office merely for the purpose of enriching themselves. Apparently they have but scant use for the principle that a public of fice is a public trust. Per sons aspire to hold high po sitions in the government without even thinking whe ther they have the proper intellectual, civic, and moral qualifications to perform the functions attached to them. Public positions attract ma ny of them not because of the opportunities for service but because of the opportu nities for improving their personal financial condition and their social or economic influence and prestige. In the words of an American commentator, to such persons public office is a public lust. The constitutional provi sions on the office of Pres ident of the Philippines were partly influenced by the exaggerated popularity of the dictatorships at the time the Constitutional Convention met in 1934. That was around the period when dic tators were able to maintain effectively peace and order and to produce some im provement on the living con ditions of the masses in their country thru ruthless action even to the extent of de priving the people of much of their basic freedoms. At a time when the world was suffering from a terrible economic depression, the temporary success of the dic tators, specially Germany’s 42 Panorama Hitler and Italy’s Mussolini, macle a strong impression on the leaders in many other countries, including unfor tunately the Philippines. Their visible record of sen sational achievement in sup pressing labor troubles, main taining normal production of factories, keeping the regu larity of the movement of trains and other public ve hicles, preserving strictly na tional discipline and order, providing workers with three meals a day, and reducing poverty and destitution urban and rural areas deflected the attention and feeling of most people from official abuses, from the sufferings of cer tain elements, and from in herent evils of authoritarianisms. In nations beset by spreading misery and econo mic chaos, the apparently be neficial results of totalitarian practices produced followers among heads of states in va rious degrees. Even Pres ident Franklin Delano Roose velt had found it expedient to adopt many of the me thods of highly centralized authority in order to hasten the recovery of the American people from the unprece dented economic crisis. The Philippines could not escape the general influence of the times. Her leaders felt the popularity of strong ly centralized authority in a chief executive. Hence, the powers given to the office of the President in the Consti tution then being formulated were magnified to a much greater extent than what is good for a free and demo cratic government. With the exception of cer tain new provisions on so cial, economic, and educa tional subjects, the Constitu tion of the Philippines is basically a copy of the Con stitution of the United States with respect to the system of governm,ent administra tion. It is what is known as presidential system. The powers of the President of the United States have been copied and vested in the President of the Philippines. But while in the United States, which is a federal organization, its President is given only those powers di rectly affecting the national affairs, in the case of the President of the Philippines, the powers given him by our Constitution include not on ly powers necessary for the Febbuaby 1969 43 administration of the nation but also powers over local governments which in the United States are left to the governments of the different states. Hence, the powers of the President of the Philip pines include the totality of the powers of the President of the United States and those of the governors of the different states. Studying the conditions of the countries and their gov ernments organized during the last 20 or 25 years all over the world, the eminent American scholar Henry Steele Commager stated: “It is sobering, but not surpris ing, that of the sixty some nations that have come into existence since 1945, not one has adopted the American form of government.” The conclusion has been that the American presidential system of government is not suitable for countries other than the United States. In this country of ours, however, not one voice has been seriously raised over the last few years advocating a different system than what we have copied from the United States with the ex ception of that of former President Sergio Osmefia, the late Senator Claro M. Recto, the late Senator Jose Laurel, and the former Senator Ma nuel Briones. Their advo cacy for a system of parlia mentary government appro priate to our political needs and inate inclinations finds strong support from their mature experience in public life and from their keen ob servation of the political psychology of the Filipino people. It is time that we extend the scope and depth of our studies to other systems of government for our country. The results of such studies may then be presented and considered in the Constitu tional Convention which will be held in a year or so from today. It is time that we should avoid as much as we could the organization of a system which enables a man to say: “What are we in power for?” It is time that some constitutional means be adopted to prevent an offi cial to use his post “to pro vide for his future.” What we have been experiencing requires a different legisla tive organization, an organ ization vested with enumerat 44 Panorama ed and specific powers rather than one vested with gen eral legislative powers so as to reduce as much as possi ble the misuse of vast privi leges and the abuse of an unlimited discretionary au thority over all kinds of sub jects. In addition, we should define a more meaningful set of qualifications for pub lic officials in order that our country could have the bene fit of the services of man of mature experience, of honest convictions, and of high in telligence, character, and education. With such type of men in public office, we will have government offi cials who will tend to be have not as masters but as responsible servants of the people. Suffrage is a right that should not be indiscrimin ately granted to all citizens regatdless of their maturity, their sense of responsibility, their intelligence and educa tion, their stake in the or derly condition of the com munity, and the degree of their consciousness of the na ture of public office as a public trust. The gross mis conception of democracy as the rule of a majority formed and created by the ignorant, the semi-literates, the half wits, the indifferent, the bribe-takers, the trouble-mak ers, the hoodlums, and thugs is not worth defending, pre serving, and observing,. It is erroneous and must be avoid ed. It is not the authentic idea of democracy as the ins titution designed for the pro tection of the dignity of man and the worth of the human life. Democracy cannot be established and realized by the most adroit mechanical and procedural devices of electoral regulations. The new Constitution must give emphasis on the personal qualifications of the voter and on a strict adherence to their observance. These, in brief, are some of the grounds which should be considered in revising the Constitution of the Philip pines. — By V. G. Sinco. Febhuaby 1969 45

pages

39+

Media