Reason and Concern

by Ronquillo C. Tolentino

Nograles’ Fourth Mode

Amendments or revisions to the 1987 Philippine Constitution may be done through three methods as enumerated in Sections 1 and 2, Art. XVII of the said Constitution. Jose N. Nolledo in the 1987 first edition of his work The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Explained simply enumerated, for a better understanding, methods of amendment or revision is as follows : " (1) By the Congress by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of all its members; (2) By a constitutional convention, either called by two thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of the Congress, or approved by the electorate (in a referendum) as when (in the latter case) the question of calling such convention is submitted to the electorate by majority vote of all the members of the Congress; or (3) by the people through a system of initiative under the conditions set forth in Section 2 of the instant Article.

In any of the ways mentioned above, the revision or amendment must be submitted to the people for ratification and the same shall be valid only when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite. (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)".

Any lawyer or political science student would readily enumerate the three methods of amending or revising the 1987 Constitution. Albeit not found in the Constitution, House of Representatives speaker Prospero Nograles had contrived of a fourth mode via his

House Bill No. 737.

Nograles asserts that his bill is intended to amend the Constitution’s economic provisions, specifically Sections 2 and 3 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony). Article XII has 22 sections. His bill seeks to give foreigners rights enjoyed by Filipinos inclusive of land ownership and public utilities.

The intendment of House Bill No. 737 is at once suspect. Nograles states that his bill would be treated as an ordinary bill. He seeks three-fourth, of each chamber to pass his bill though. Why 3/4 vote of each chamber when he contends that his bill is to be treated as an ordinary legislation? If it is an ordinary legislation, a simple majority of the members of each house of Congress would be needed.

Even if Nograles may have only considered Sections 1 and 2 Art. XII, there is no telling that from the 60 percent – 40 percent provision on natural resources, it may proceed to Section 11 on public utilities and provisions on foreign investments. It may even proceed to the ownership and management of mass media under Sec. 11 (1) of Art. XVI or to Section 10, par. 2 which qualifies the rule that in the grant of right, privileges, concession covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos."

As a matter of recollection and even if House Bill No. 737 or the Nograles Fourth Mode is a disguised constituent assembly. Rep. Herminio Teves has occasion to state that the constituent assembly failed in May 1957, April 1966 and June 1969.

Already, speaker Nograles expressed that his fourth mode may be questioned in the Supreme Court.

The hurriedness of the Nograles Fourth Mode is at once suspect. It is, as a matter of fact, an exercise in misplaced legislative priority.

I may be wrong but one should look back at the failed people initiative on the 2005 Consultative Commission Proposed Revision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article VIII had the legislative and executive powers vested in a unicameral parliament while Article VIII provides that the executive power shall be exercised by the Prime Minister with the assistance of his cabinet.

Since the May 2002 national political summit, there had been several attempts to revise or amend the 1987 Constitution.

I adhere to the observation that there is a compelling need to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution. But the Filipino people must be given a sufficient period of awareness, knowledge and discussion of the provisions to be amended or revised.

Better that we elect delegates to a constitutional convention to amend or revise the Constitution even after the 2010 elections. /MP