angelic moo

Arroyo's retreat from constitutional change by whatever means is not only an indication of her sensitivity to popular opinion. It is, more than anything else, the sign that she is the consummate politician. Having tested popular opinion on constitutional change through a constituent assembly, she is at the very least intelligent enough to know that the backlash against the House of Representatives could infect her already tenuous tenure as President. She has sacrificed her pawns at the same time preserved her place at helm of the nation. She packaged her retreat as an attempt to end political divisions but in truth is putting out fires that her allies set when they unilaterally scrapped the rule that constitutional amendments, like other laws, must be approved separately by both chambers of Congress. Arroyo survives yet again. What remains to be seen is whether she and allies will tempt fate again before her term ends in 2010 and tinker with the Constitution.

Speaker de Venecia's hasty retreat in pursuing constitutional change through a constituent assembly is proof that Filipinos have an appreciation of constitutionalism. The threat of another mass uprising against the Speaker's project apparently forced the administration to reconsider its actions. Persistent manifestations of "people power" in the recent past have led critics, mostly from the West, to claim that we have not yet matured politically. I have argued elsewhere that these uprisings are ways in which people enforce the principles that are enshrined in our Constitution. Massing forces to challenge the Speaker's actions in the House of Representatives shows that Filipinos in fact want to defend their Constitution. Contrary to the critics' stand, Filipinos will not settle every dispute through popular uprisings, but are in fact guided by a respect for the fundamental law of the land.

Pro-initiative advocates presented a disturbing suggeston that was featured in the news recently ostensibly in support of the floundering case on initiative now pending with the Supreme Court (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153). The Manila Standard reported that Deans Danilo Fariñas of the University of Baguio and Hermogenes Decano of the University of Pangasinan claimed “there is no distinction between the terms amendment and revision of the 1987 Constitution because they are “understood to be one and the same” by the people, who are considered the sovereign authors of the fundamental law of the land.” The lawyers also said that even law practitioners have agreed to define the words “amend” and “revise” as pertaining to “changes.” Fariñas and Decano said they found the “technical distinctions unnecessary” because even the US Federal Constitution from which the Philippine Constitution extensively adopted its principles, makes no mention of the word revision as distinct from amend...