Another easy guide, this time,
to the House-proposed Constitution

AGAIN, to aid in the intelligent discussion and debate on charter change, we have prepared another matrix, comparing this time the 1987 Constitution with the working draft of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments chaired by Lakas Rep. Constantino Jaraula.

At first glance, the House draft appears to be a benign document, with seemingly fewer controversial provisions than what the Constitution being proposed by the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo-assembled Consultative Commission on charter change (Con-Com) contains.

Well, for a while, it does seem so. The text of the preamble is untouched. Article I (National Territory) only had the phrase "and/or historic right or legal title" (similar to the Con-Com’s) inserted to its provision. It does not introduce any new article, much more a Bill of Duties, except for one, Article VII-A on The Prime Minister and the Cabinet, which is an obligatory appendage to the one on the President which has replaced the old article on the Executive Department given a projected shift to the parliamentary system.
 
And unlike the Con-Com proposal which dropped 18 provisions under Article II on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, only two sections have encountered substantial revisions, although Section 2 no longer renounces war as an instrument of national policy, but merely "abhors" it.

Section 3 drops the description of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as "the protector of the people and the State" and supplants it by stating that "shall secure the sovereignty of the State, the integrity of the national territory, and the fundamental rights of the people."

Section 25 adds the phrase "or clusters thereof, towards the ultimate establishment of a federal system of government" to the declaration regarding the autonomy of local governments.

The Bill of Rights virtually escapes unscathed except for Section 19, where the death penalty imposed on crimes shall no longer be reduced to reclusion perpetua, and subsection (3) of Section 12, which extends the inadmissibility of any confession that is obtained in violation of said section "in any proceeding."

But as soon as one begins reading Article VI on The Parliament and onwards, the real nature of the proposed amendments are revealed.

For starters, take a look at Article XVIII. Clearly written all over the transitory provisions is the "No Elections" scenario in 2007 that the Con-Com has earlier proposed.

Sections 1 to 4 now read as follows:

Section 1. The unicameral parliamentary system and the Parliament provided herein shall begin immediately after ratification of these Amendments, with the present Congress converted into the Interim Parliament and all Members thereof shall become automatic Members of the Interim Parliament until June 30, 2007.  The first elections of the Members of the Parliament, and of all local officials nationwide except those of the Barangay, shall be held on the second Monday of May, 2007. The senators elected in May 2004 shall serve as Members of Parliament until June 30, 2010.

Section 2. The incumbent Vice President shall automatically become Member of the Parliament and of the Cabinet until June 30, 2010. He shall preside over the Parliament for the immediate election of the Prime Minister, upon nomination of the incumbent President. Thereafter, the Parliament shall elect the Speaker, and both shall assume their respective offices immediately.

Section 3. However, if in the Plebiscite for the ratification of the foregoing proposed amendments, the people shall decide to set the first elections under the parliamentary system to the second Monday of May 2010, then the Interim Parliament shall be extended until June 30, 2010.

Section 4. On the other hand, if the people decide to push through with the elections of 2007, then the terms of office of all officials elected therein shall be up to June 30, 2012. And Parliament shall elect, after noon of June 30, 2010, from among the Members thereof the President who shall serve until June 30, 2012.

Section 3 even poses a deceptive multiple choice that the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL) dissects into two major proposals to be submitted to a planned plebiscite: (1) whether or not the people support the parliamentary system and its resulting parliamentary elections, and (2) whether or not the
people want to postpone th 2007 elections.

Voting "no" to the first, according to CODAL, is tantamount to voting to a postponement of the 2007 elections. A "yes" vote, on the other hand, implies suporting the shift to the parliamentary system.

(CODAL has issued a legal memorandum that comprehensively discusses the House proposals. To read more, click here.)

Here’s more under Article XVIII. Under the new Section 8, which reads:

From the ratification of the foregoing Amendments to June 30, 2010, the  incumbent President shall continue to exercise the same powers as she has now, except those she will delegate to the Prime Minister who shall serve as chief operating officer of the government, conformably with the Parliamentary system.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is not only guaranteed to stay as president until 2010, she is assured as well of the same powers she enjoys now, including commander-in-chief powers, control and supervision over the Ministies and Cabinet, executive powers of supervision over local governments, power to contract loans and to ratify treaties.

Section 25 under the same article, which reads:

After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

has been deleted, largely seen as eliminating the last constitutional obstacle to the re-deployment of US troops and the reestablishment of US military bases in the country.

The safety mechanisms against martial law instituted under the 1987 Constitution have also been removed. Under Section 12 of Article VII-A (The Prime Minister and the Cabinet), only the first paragraph remains, a largely diluted one:

The Prime Minister shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.

Gone from the provision is the clause that limits martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to a period not exceeding 60 days. Gone as well are the powers of Congress to revoke such a proclamation or suspension, and of the Supreme Court to initiate a review of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension.

The section also introduces new grounds for declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Whereby the 1987 Constitution limited martial law to "rebellion and invasion, when public safety requires it," the nebulous concept of "imminent danger" also will now suffice.

Download the matrix here to learn more about what has been removed, revised and added to the 1987 Constitution as proposed by the Jaraula committee.

By the way, we hope Filipino boxing hero Manny Pacquiao, whose services is reportedly being tapped by the Arroyo administration to help in its campaign to make charter change acceptable to the people, will engage himself in rigorous study of the proposed charter changes the way he seriously trains to prepare for a boxing match. Please tell him about this blog.