Debate on
constitutional change ignores protection of rights
A Statement by the Asian
Human Rights Commission
February 6, 2018
As widely reported, the
Philippines House of Representatives (Congress), the country’s
legislative body, is lobbying to change the political system by
amending the 1987 Constitution. President Rodrigo Duterte’s
political allies in Congress are proposing to change from a
presidential form of government, to a federal one. The main reasons
given for this are twofold: first, to devolve power to local
government; second, a federal state would allow equal distribution
of wealth among local government units.
According to the
proponents of federalism, their constituencies have been neglected
by “Imperial Manila”. This supposed governmental neglect and unequal
distribution of resources by the national government is being blamed
for poor performance. This argument is not entirely accurate, as a
Local Government Code empowering local government units already
exists. As former chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. had said, to
amend the distribution of resources from the national government
does not require amending the Constitution, only the Local
Government Code.
The Asian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC) is thus curious as to why President Rodrigo
Duterte’s political allies are so bent on changing the 1987
Constitution within his term. The 1987 Constitution contains the
aspirations of the Filipino people in reaction to the Marcos
dictatorship: notably the Bill of Rights, and provisions on social
justice. Ignored by Marcos, these were inscribed and explicitly
written down afterward. It is unfortunate that over three decades
after Marcos’ dictatorship ended, these aspirations are yet to be
realized. In fact, the current debate on the proposed constitutional
change is silent on constitutional rights. Moreover, the
institutions built to protect these aspirations are being
intimidated.
The Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) and the Office of the Ombudsman, two independent
constitutional bodies created by the 1987 Constitution, have
recently been targeted by President Duterte’s political allies in
Congress. The Congress attempted to deprived the CHR of its
operational budget by funding it only P1,000 pesos. Had it not been
for the protests against it, the lawmakers would not have
reconsidered the funding. Since assuming office, CHR chairperson
Jose Luis Martin Gascon has been a target of President Duterte’s
harsh critics, for standing in his way on the drug war. Meanwhile,
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales recently locked horns with
President Duterte as she refused to implement his order suspending
her Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Melchor Arthur Carandang. He
reportedly leaked the bank transactions of Duterte and his family
without their consent.
Whether or not President
Duterte’s allies will succeed in their plan to change the political
system from a presidential to federal one, the current debate
excludes any discussion on how constitutional rights should be
protected. This is hardly surprising, given President Duterte’s
rejection of human rights as values, and his intimidation of
institutions that check abuses. The current administration and its
political allies have no thoughts of protecting the constitutional
rights of their constituencies. This can only worsen in a federal
state, with local bosses lording over their constituents in complete
disregard of their rights.
Any debate on
constitutional change must include discussion on the protection of
constitutional rights. Where are Filipinos to turn to seek
protection for their yet to be fulfilled aspirations? Those
proposing amendments to the constitution owe an explanation to the
people they intend to rule in a federal state. Those who oppose
constitutional amendments, also owe it to the Filipino people, to
discuss what it means to overhaul the Constitution without any
dialogue on the protection of constitutional rights. The pain,
suffering, insights, and aspirations of those who suffered the
dictatorship must be taken into account in any political change.