1987 Constitution part of solution, not the problem – framers

While the 1987 Philippine Constitution was an imperfect document that could be improved, amending it to accommodate a federal form of government would not solve society's ills, 11 of the Constitution's framers asserted in a statement.

“The undiscerning haste to draft a new Constitution by converting Congress into a Constituent Assembly ostensibly to overhaul our system of governance into a federal form of government, we are convinced will further distract if not to deviate from the issues that should remain as our priorities,” argued framers Edmundo G. Garcia, Felicitas S. Aquino-Arroyo, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Teodoro S. Bacani, Florangel Rosario Braid, Hilario G. Davide Jr., Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, Christian S. Monsod, Ricardo J. Romulo, Jaime S. Tadeo, and Bernardo M. Villegas.

They also pointed out that while three-fourths of Filipinos were unfamiliar with provisions in the 1987 Constitution, many of these provisions had yet to be implemented.

"If we dedicate ourselves to ensuring that the Articles on Social Justice, on Human Rights, the Article on Local Government, and the Accountability of Public Officers, to name but three, are fully understood, observed and implemented, then the principal objectives of the proposed charter change can, in fact, be met -- without having to draft a new Constitution," they further argued.

The framers said the Constitution, contrary to being a "problem" to be remedied through amendment,  actually provided "solutions" to issues that a federal government was supposed to solve.

Pointing to one of the problems that federalism was supposed to solve, the Constitution in its present form had provisions which addressed the "concentration of political and economic power now in the hands of urban-based decision-makers," particularly those in the NCR.

Referring to basic policies on local autonomy under Section 5, Article X, the framers said local government units already possessed "the power to create its own sources to levy taxes, fees and charges."

LGUs were also entitled to "an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas," citing Section 7.

Section 13, they added, also gave LGUs "the power to group themselves, consolidate, or contribute their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with the law."

The Local Government Code of 1931, on the other hand, could be amended and improved to allocate resources "more fairly" and distribute wealth "more equitably" but likewise without having to amend the Constitution, they said.

Finally, the framers said there was a need to question the transparency of the entire the current Charter-Change process, emphasizing that the "devil in the details."

Additionally, there  were"red flags" in the Transitory Provisions, particularly the term limits of elected officials who would participate in the Charter Change. — Margaret Claire Layug/DVM, GMA News