|
Friday, March 31, 2006
Malilong: Amending, revising the Constitution
By Frank Malilong Jr.
The Other Side
The judiciary, it is said, isn’t heard; it is read. The other day, the press information office of the Supreme Court took the unusual step, however, of explaining that the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution cannot be pursued because of the Court decision that there is no law to govern its exercise.
Unlike most provisions of the Constitution that are self-operative, the one that authorizes people’s initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution is not.
This is clear from Section 2 of the article on Amendments or Revisions that says: “The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.” This is what is now is commonly referred to as the “enabling law.”
An examination of Section 2 also shows that what it authorizes the people to directly propose are amendments to, not a revision of, the Constitution, the power to revise having been vested only upon Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, or a constitutional convention.
The layman may find this nothing more than a play of words. But Justice Isagani Cruz said the two terms have significantly different connotations.
Amendment, he says, “means isolated or piecemeal change only, as distinguished from revision, which is a revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument.”
The change of the term of office of the president from six to four years was an amendment to the 1935 Constitution, Cruz said. “But there was a revision when the Constitutional Commission of 1986 re-wrote the Marcos charter and produced what is now the Constitution of 1987.”
Thus, the shift from presidential to parliamentary government and the adoption of a unicameral legislature cannot be achieved through people’s initiative because it entails an overhaul of the Constitution. On the other hand, shortening the term of office of the president is an amendment that can be introduced through people’s initiative.
If that’s the point of the whole exercise, then we should all encourage it to allow President Arroyo to make a graceful exit under such circumstances as would ensure that the presidency doesn’t fall into the hands of Erap and his gang or those of military adventurists.
Of course, we all know that that is wishful thinking. An early GMA exit is farthest from the minds of those who are vigorously championing the cause for Charter change. There must be another agenda hidden behind the claim that the country needs the constitutional reforms in order to move forward and keep pace with her neighbors.
***
Our phones went dead early this week because thieves again stole PLDT’s cables. I said again because as far as I can recall, that was the third time that it occurred since we moved to the pier area a little over a year ago.
Will somebody please assure me that things of this sort won’t happen again when we have a prime minister, instead of a president, and only one national assembly instead of two houses of Congress?
(fmmalilong@yahoo.com)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (March 31, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
