The current provisions of the 1987 Constitution in the Philippines have been widely criticized for their constraining and outdated characteristics. Dean Roberto Galang of the Ateneo de Manila University-John Gokongwei School of Management emphasized the need for change during a recent interview on the “BBC World Questions: Philippines” program. Galang pointed out that many of the country’s laws date back to the Commonwealth era, with some even originating from the Radio Control Act, which controls the telecom structure. These outdated laws hinder progress and prevent necessary reforms from taking place.
Galang further highlighted the restrictive nature of the country’s legal framework concerning foreign investments. He compared the Philippines to countries like Ethiopia and Indonesia, stating that the restrictions in sectors such as education, media, advertising, and retail were similar. These limitations on foreign investments hinder economic growth and prevent the country from fully capitalizing on its potential.
One of the major challenges in enacting change is the slow pace of passing laws. Galang emphasized that the political landscape often hampers progress. He urged policymakers not to focus solely on changing the economic aspects of the Constitution but also to address the underlying political issues. Without resolving these political challenges, the country will struggle to achieve meaningful development.
Opposition to constitutional change has also emerged from various quarters. Rafaela David, the President of Akbayan Citizens Action Party, expressed concern about the timing of the proposed Charter change. She highlighted the escalating political rivalry between the Marcoses and the Dutertes, questioning the motives behind the proposed amendments. David argued that the current liberalization of the economy made constitutional change unnecessary.
Former Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio echoed this sentiment, stating that the country had already achieved economic liberalization. He argued that any move to change the Constitution for economic purposes would be redundant. Carpio’s perspective reflects the cautious approach taken by some who question the necessity and potential consequences of constitutional change.
Despite opposition, Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez expressed confidence that the Senate would pass its version of the amendments to the 1987 Constitution. Romualdez praised the abilities of the senators and their commitment to the welfare of the people. However, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri acknowledged the challenges in gathering the necessary 18 votes for the measure’s approval. Zubiri anticipated a decision to be made before the Holy Week, indicating the Senate’s commitment to addressing the issue promptly.
In conclusion, the need for constitutional change in the Philippines has become a topic of intense debate. Experts like Dean Roberto Galang emphasize the outdated and constraining nature of certain provisions within the 1987 Constitution. They argue that these provisions hinder progress and prevent the country from fully capitalizing on economic opportunities. However, opposition from figures like Rafaela David and Antonio Carpio raises important questions about the timing and necessity of constitutional change. As the Senate deliberates on the proposed amendments, the future of the Philippines’ constitutional landscape remains uncertain.
Source: The Manila Times
