By Robert B. Roque, Jr.
Since the group People’s Initiative for Reform Modernization and Action (Pirma) surfaced last month with its campaign to force a move for Charter change or Cha-cha, political divisions in the ruling party became well-defined.
It’s challenging to listen to debates between senators and members of Congress over the issue because while they make good arguments, our better judgment sees through the vested interests and political bickering upon which they are rooted.
So, let me share the insights of the legal minds who have stepped up and spoken about how they view this drive to amend the republic’s 36-year-old Constitution.
Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. minced no words, branding any attempts to tinker with the Charter as a “cha-cha dance leading straight to the grave or to hell.” With the precision of a seasoned jurist, he dismantled the notion that economic woes could be solved by amending constitutional provisions, asserting instead that such moves would birth more significant problems.
Christian Monsod, former Commission on Elections chairman and constitutional framer, echoed the same sentiments, emphasizing the pressing need to address the quality of education rather than indulging in constitutional acrobatics. His scathing rebuke highlighted the stark reality of Filipino students lagging in global assessments, puncturing holes in the argument for Charter change.
Vicente Mendoza, a retired Supreme Court associate justice, dropped a legal bombshell by asserting that the current Constitution mandates separate voting by the House and the Senate in a constituent assembly. His meticulous dissection of constitutional intent and precedent left no room for ambiguity: any attempt to bypass this procedure would be legally untenable.
Adolfo S. Azcuna, another former High Court magistrate, struck at the heart of the matter by arguing against embedding ownership restrictions in the Constitution. His call for flexibility in economic policies, anchored in global comparisons, exposed the folly of enshrining such provisions in constitutional stone.
