From: Dindo B. Donato <dbdonato@deszr.com>
Sent: Saturday, 23 January 2021 4:29 PM
To: 'kiko@kikopangilinan.com' <kiko@kikopangilinan.com>;
'senatesecretary.myvillarica@gmail.com' <senatesecretary.myvillarica@gmail.com>;
'os_sotto@yahoo.com' <os_sotto@yahoo.com>; 'sottolegis@gmail.com'
<sottolegis@gmail.com>; 'secretariat.batodelarosa@gmail.com'
<secretariat.batodelarosa@gmail.com>; 'tolsenate@gmail.com' <tolsenate@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Evelyn Kilayko' <ekilayko@yahoo.com>; 'TD B'
<comm_baltazar@yahoo.com>; 'abendrinal@yahoo.com'
<abendrinal@yahoo.com>; 'Lilibet Amatong'
<lamatong@publicusltd.com>;
Subject: People's Draft (a crowd-sourced constitution)
Hon. Francis N. Pangilinan
Senator
Chairperson, Committee on Constitutional Reform
and Revision of Codes
Senate of the Philippines
Republic of the Philippines
Dear Senator Pangilinan,
Magandang hapon po. We trust that you are well.
Tanggulang Demokrasya (TanDem), Inc., a people’s organization
advocating system change, would like to engage your good committee on the
matter of constitutional reform. TanDem respectfully requests that its comments
on the discussion points for the public hearing on 27 January 2021, be noted
for the record and considered for deliberation on this matter.
- Is there a need amend or revise the 1987
Constitution now, given the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic downturn?
What is the proposed timeline for Charter Change, given the upcoming
National and Local Elections scheduled in May 2022?
TanDem: We believe that the 1987
Constitution should be revised NOW, because our systemic problems cannot be
effectively addressed without constitutional reform. The most burdensome
economic restrictions are in the constitution, that practically gives the local
elite the exclusive privilege to treat the 103M Filipinos as its captive
market, like in the public utility industry (TTKT – tubig, telepono, kuryente,
transpo) and in the mass media industry (TRID – tv, radyo, internet, dyaryo).
Likewise, the manner of electing national officials are in the constitution,
that favors the “rich and famous” candidates, because the selection process is
by “elections at large.” The Covid-19 pandemic and the economic downturn is the
best proof that policy reversals and institutional restructuring should have
been done yesterday, instead of today.
To save on cost, TanDem proposes that
the constitutional reforms be subject to plebiscite at the same time as the
national and local elections in May 2022. The question to approve or reject the
proposed reforms can be inserted into the long ballot of candidates, or can be
made in another short ballot just for the plebiscite.
To avoid disruption, TanDem also
proposes that the effectivity of the sensitive political reform provisions
be deferred to May 2025, with only the economic and social reform
provisions taking effect upon approval in a plebiscite in May 2022.
- Should the amendments or revisions be proposed
by a Constitutional Convention or by Congress itself as a constituent
assembly? Why?
TanDem: We believe that the
constitutional reforms should be proposed by Congress in constituent assembly,
instead of by Constitutional Convention, because this is fastest and the least
cost mode of proposing revisions.
We do not believe that a Constitutional
Convention will be better than Congress in proposing revisions, or that the
former will be free from the influence of vested interests and power brokers
compared to the latter, because the delegates to the convention are also
elected from the same districts as the congressmen. In other words, a
constitutional convention is for practical purposes simply another congress (or
like congress no. 2).
What is critical is the content of the
proposed revisions, rather than the mode of proposing revisions. To ensure that
the proposed revisions will not favor vested interests and power brokers, what
is important is transparency, or that the people must know what changes are
being deliberated.
To this end, TanDem in cooperation with
its partner organization Publicus Asia, initiated the framing of a
crowd-sourced constitution known as the “People’s Draft,” to embody in a single
instrument the reforms we believe will promote the general welfare of the
people, devoid of clauses protect only the economic elite and the political
“rich and famous.”
Congress in constituent assembly may
then adopt, revise or modify the People’s Draft in the reasonable exercise of its
discretion. In case Congress prefers to write its own draft, then the People’s
Draft may instead serve as a checklist of the economic, political and social
reforms that we would like to see included in its proposed revisions.
- If Congress convenes as a constituent assembly
for the purpose of amending or revising the Constitution, should the
Senate and the House of Representatives vote jointly or separately?
TanDem: Based on the language and
spirit of the 1987 Constitution, we believe there is sufficient legal basis for
the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene and vote separately, and
in the end, to cumulate their respective votes accordingly. In other words, we
respectfully submit that the principle of “separate voting, cumulative counting”
may be validly adopted under the 1987 Constitution. If the two houses agree to
deliberate and finalize the proposals in a bicameral conference committee, that
process is also acceptable, because it does contradict the stated principle,
the 1987 Constitution is silent on the specifics of the process, and it may
actually faciliate the finalization of proposed revisions to the constitution.
Notably, the ultimate
lawmaker of a constitution is the people who will directly vote on it. In
contrast, the ultimate lawmaker of a statute is the body of the people’s
representatives (i.e. senators, representatives) who then vote it. Accordingly,
the process of framing proposed revisions to the constitution, must be
construed liberally instead of strictly, because in the end, sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. See Del Rosario v. Carbonell, G.R. No. L-32476, 20 October 1970. See Occena
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 56350, 02 April 1981. Attached is a research
material on the congressional exercise of constituent powers that presents the
legal basis for the principle of “separate voting, cumulative counting.”
Attached for the committee’s
review are the following materials on the People’s Draft:
- Executive Summary v27e
(2020),
- Full Text v27e (2020),
- Comparison with 1987
Constitution v27e (2020),
- Comparison with Con-Com
Draft v27e (2020).
Additional materials are available for download from the System Change
folder in the online library of the Law Firm of the undersigned counsel:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/398fn7r8pl7tuyu/AADUWVJwnpZBu6vxVrErNu2ha/System%20Change?dl=0
We
believe that reforms should not be limited to the way how our laws are
implemented, but should also cover how the laws are made. Most importantly, we
think that any meaningful review of our laws should definitely cover the
constitution, the highest law of the land.
In
our view, constitutional reform is the way of a peaceful revolution that can
actually change our daily lives and the nation’s fate. To this end, we hope to
secure the participation and cooperation of all the major sectors/groups of the
country (i.e. clergy, security, polity and society), so that together we can
finally realize “system change.”
Maraming
salamat at ingat po kayo.
Sincerely,
Atty. Dindo B. Donato
General Counsel
Tanggulang Demokrasya
Noted by:
Evelyn Kilayko
Chairperson, Tanggulang Demokrasya
Teresita D. Baltazar
President, Tanggulang Demokrasya
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Vicente C. Sotto III
Senate President
Senate of the Philippines
Republic of the Philippines
Hon. Ronald M. Dela Rosa
Senator
Senate of the Philippines
Republic
of the Philippines
Hon. Francis N. Tolentino
Senator
Senate
of the Philippines
Republic
of the Philippines
