Hilario Davide Jr.'s Growing Irrelevance Isn't Because of His Age But His REFUSAL to Make NECESSARY Amendments in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
It's times like this that make me ashamed to be from Cebu. This Facebook page tends to demonize charter change without realizing that it can be a proper game changer. I'm pointing out that Hon. Hilario G. Davide Jr. isn't getting irrelevant because of his age. The problem isn't growing old but when one grows old without wisdom. I'd say this is the case for Davide Jr. himself he's grown old without wisdom. He's already 88 years old but he's still too comfortable with the outdated 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as it is. Come on, if that's the case then what happened to Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines?
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was never meant to be set in stone
Did Davide Jr. even bother reading Article XVII many years back and see what needed to be changed? Instead, the fear-mongering against the movement called charter change with statements like, "If we shift to a parliamentary system, we will have a president reigning for more than six years. It's scary, isn't it?" Never mind that the late Pol Pot murdered more people than the first Marcos Regime. An article I wrote earlier discussed why a short reign isn't necessarily benevolent and a long reign isn't necessarily tyrannical. That's where I cited that Pol Pot murdered millions more than the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. could dream of. I guess that's why Marcos Sr. wasn't featured in the Netflix documentary How to Become a Dictator. Instead, Pol Pot's genocidal short reign gained a more prominent spot.
It's also a problem when people cite the late Lee Kuan Yew on the Marcoses. What's forgotten is LKY's meeting with the late Fidel V. Ramos. LKY recalled his meeting with FVR from the book From Third World to First and why charter change was even proposed:
Mrs. Aquino's succesor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, "I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislative was also in the govenrment. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.
If only people read their history, the problem with the new constitution under Marcos Sr. wasn't that a new constitution was installed. Instead, it was a huge mockery, and a lot of illegal activities were notified. The late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. even mentioned several stupidities with the new constitution. One of them was that the Philippines had a "parliamentary form of government" but there was no parliament. Marcos Sr. made himself both president and prime minister. To those who use Cesar Virata as evidence, LKY even said this about Virata in Third World to First:
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.
Once again, all the fearmongering information against charter change is baseless. It's like going against weapons of self-defense or tools because they were used during a murder. Should I ban hammers because somebody murdered someone with a hammer? The problem wasn't the hammer but the wrong use of the hammer. If one recollects what Marcos Sr. did during his regime, Ninoy even mentioned the use of bribery and other tricks. Marcos Sr. made a very twisted parliament that was nowhere near the parliamentary system of our neighboring countries. I even dared someone to prove to Singapore that the Philippines had a legitimate parliament. He, this political scientist, just declined, probably because he was too convinced of his error.
If we look further into the words of Marcos Sr., this is what we can read from The Official Gazette:
The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character. Article VII on the Presidency starts with this provision: ‘the President shall be the Head of State and Chief Executive of the Republic of the Philippines.’ Its last section is an even more emphatic affirmation that it is a presidential system that obtains in our government. Thus: all powers vested in the President who, by virtue of his election by the entire electorate, has an indisputable claim to speak for the country as a whole. Moreover, it is he who is explicitly granted the greater power of control of such ministries. He continues to be the executive, the amplitude and scope of the functions entrusted to him in the formulation of policy and its execution leading to the apt observation by LASI that there is not one aspect of which that does not affect the lives of all.
Did you read that? The amendments under Marcos Sr.'s constitution were all still focused on the presidential system. The problem wasn't constitutional amendments but the misuse of it. Sure, we need to keep weapons of self-defense and tools away from children. However, we don't ban their use because a murder or accident happened. We may ban certain stuff like cosmetics with unsafe ingredients. However, tools and weapons of self-defense aren't to be banned because they're meant to be used for good. The problem wasn't the tool or the weapon of self-defense but the misuse of that certain object. The same goes for charter change--it was the misuse of charter change. It's like martial law is still allowable. The problem wasn't martial law but the misuse of martial law during the first Marcos Regime.
Davide Jr. should've thought outside the box instead of getting too intoxicated with the success of EDSA. I'm not going to say the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the worst in the world. It has some useful provisions for human rights. However, the problem is that sticking to the status quo of personality-based politics and the Filipino First Policy has caused the Philippines to be left behind. Isn't it really time to make important amendments. For example, why don't we move economic restrictions from the constitution to the legislation? From the Philippine Star this 2024, I'm glad Masigan continues to be for charter change. I'm going to share these words of his to show why Davide Jr. has become irrelevant:
I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.
The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.
So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.
The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.
From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.
Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.
Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.
Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.
As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.
The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.
Davide Jr.'s economic ignorance is still baffling
Foreign control
According to Davide, opening the country’s education system to foreigners could make schools vulnerable to foreign control.“The proposal [RB6] opens to foreign control and dominance, our basic education, which is the most crucial to the development of our young,” he said.Citing the 1987 Constitution, Davide said that having foreign leaders in the Philippines’ basic education system would undermine the “noble patriotic and nationalistic virtues,” which are constitutionally mandated to be part of the curricula of all educational institutions.
He explained that Article 14, Section 3 of the Charter provides for schools to teach patriotism and nationalism, among others, to young Filipinos.
“Can we expect foreigners at the helm or control of the educational system to seriously and healthily obey this state policy on education?” asked Davide.
As for foreign ownership of public utilities and advertising, Davide warned that it would be “extremely dangerous” if the country were to leave Congress the extent of Filipino ownership requirement in businesses in the two sectors.
“The day will not be far when public utilities and advertising industries will be under control or even under the full ownership of aliens,” he said.
Hasn't Davide Jr. even heard of economic regulations? Everyone must follow economic restrictions whether they're Filipino or foreigner. I wonder if Davide Jr. just said that while he was enjoying a cup of coffee from Starbucks or any American company. Also, the use of the word dominance can be very misleading. Foreign investments, even without a Filipino partner, will still fall under the control of the Philippine government. They will still be required to pay taxes and follow labor laws (such as paying people according to wage laws), environmental laws, and other related rules, and every rule available.
Yes, Israel has a restrictive economy but it's all about its fiscal policy, not ownership restrictions:
Israel’s fiscal policy is characterized by rather strict budgetary discipline, which is maintained by the significant power of the Ministry of Finance, a fiscal framework that sets limits on public deficits and annual increases in public spending, and the so-called Arrangements Law. The Arrangements Law is an omnibus law that is passed in parallel with each budget, consists of numerous restrictions and amendments, and is designed to secure the state’s financial goals.Israel’s comparatively strong fiscal position was maintained during the pandemic. In terms of the deficit, Israel posted a budget deficit (ILBUD=ECI) of 4.6% of gross domestic product by the end of 2021, down from 5.5% during the same period in 2020. The improvement came as an economic rebound that has led to higher-than-expected tax revenue. Over the past year, tax income is up 23.1% from the same period in 2020 (BOI 2021). Consequently, the increase of public debt has been relatively low in comparison to other OECD countries.The ILS 609 billion ($194 billion) spending plan for 2021 is the first budget Israel has passed since 2018. This delay was due to a prolonged political deadlock, which saw successive governments fall before they could bring a proposal to the Knesset. The 2022 spending plan stands at ILS 562.9 billion ($180 billion). The overall budget marks a major reorientation of Israel’s allocation of resources and financial priorities in the coming years. It is based on the principles of streamlining government operations, upgrading public services, boosting economic competitiveness, cutting regulations to support public and private sector growth, limiting Israel’s shadow economy, boosting transportation, housing, energy and technology infrastructure, and investing in human capital by training and integrating marginalized populations into the workforce (Ben David 2021).The Knesset’s approval of the 2021–2022 budget has reduced political uncertainty and risks to public finances, affirming the government’s capacity to advance legislation. Fitch Ratings increased Israel’s rating from A to A+. According to Fitch Ratings, “Israel’s A+ rating balances a diversified, high value-added economy, which proved resilient to the COVID-19 pandemic, strong external finances and solid institutional strength” (Fitch Ratings 2021).Citations:
Bank of Israel (BOI), “Economic indicators: Public Sector Activity,” 2021. Retrived from: https://www.boi.org.il/en/DataAndStatistics/Pages/Indicators.aspx?Level=1&IndicatorId=5&Sid=5Fitch Ratings (2021), “RATING ACTION COMMENTARY,” Retrived from: https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-affirms-israel-at-a-outlook-stable-29-07-2021Kershner, Isabel (2021), “Israel Passes First Budget in More Than 3 Years in Lifeline for Government.” The New York Times, 05 of January 2022. Retrived from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/world/middleeast/israel-budget.htmlKnesset 2021. “Knesset Plenum votes to approve 2021-2022 state budget and Arrangements Law” Retrived from: https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/News/PressReleases/Pages/press51121q.aspxBen David, Ricky. 2021, “How much of a revolution? 13 key reforma in Israel’s new State Budget,” The times of Israel. Retrived from: https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-much-of-a-revolution-13-key-plans-in-israels-new-state-budget/
That's why I recommend that people listen to Kishore Mahbubani over Davide Jr. (read here). I wrote an article on what practical advice a "Bumbay" has over a Pinoy. Mahbubani founded the world-famous Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) at the National University of Singapore (NUS). Leaders are going to Mahbubani, not Davide Jr. asking for evidence. Again, where should I listen to? A foreigner who has a prosperous country to back his statements or someone who can't back up his statements?
Maybe, people need to review the Chiong Sisters murder case too because it involved Davide Jr.
It may sound like a red herring that I'm bringing up the Chiong Sisters case. However, hearing that Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga was in Manila when the crime happened changed my perspective of the issue. I was even shocked to learn that Paco was in school and in Manila when the two sisters went missing. Some people still believed the final Supreme Court of the Philippines' decision saying that the documentary Give Up Tomorrow was biased? Are they going to believe the awfully inaccurate movie Jacqueline Comes Home next? Some scenes are a far cry from the reality. A good example is that Thelma Jimenea-Chiong was portrayed to be calm in the courtroom. However, who can forget when both Thelma and her sister Cheryl Salvaleon Jimenea threw tantrums in the courtroom when the late Judge Martin Ocampo made his verdict? Why I'm mentioning the Chiong case now isn't just because justice was never met for the victims. It's also because Davide Jr. himself is married to a relative of Thelma namely Virginia Jimenea Perez.
Sure, Marty Syjuco was connected because his brother Miguel, is a brother-in-law of Paco. However, legally speaking, Paco can't even be considered related to Marty. Marty is the brother of his brother-in-law. Thelma's sister Cheryl was the personal secretary of Joseph Estrada. Estrada himself intervened in the case, something I believe that should've never happened. Based on Give Up Tomorrow, the investigation had to be done because of orders from Estrada himself.
If you take a look at this video, I can agree that Thelma was really the victim, first and foremost. However, using the influence of her sister working for Estrada and that she had a relative-by-marriage in the Supreme Court in the Philippines, is something. As mentioned earlier, Davide Jr. was married to a relative of Thelma. Even more, the Philippine Star also shares this information regarding the motion for reconsideration:
Supreme Court spokesman Esmael Khan has confirmed that the tribunal en banc presided by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. denied the convicts’ motions to reverse its Feb. 3, 2004 decision because there was no new evidence to warrant its reversal.
Davide Jr. himself may have denied the motion for reconsideration because he was related to the victims. However, listening to this clip by Solita Collas-Monsod really makes me cringe and laugh at the same time. It's because Mrs. Monsod here points out what went wrong but she's still so against constitutional reform. If her daughter Trina Collas Monsod supports constitutional reform, I will support that daughter. The filmmaker didn't only admit he was an extended member of Paco's family. The film also presented that Davide Jr. was a relative by marriage to Thelma herself.
 |
| A diagram found on Facebook, apparently owned by the late Miguel "Juan" Del Gallego y Ripoll |
That's why I feel this was nepotism over and over again. I'd say it was a violation of due process, especially in the arrest of the eight people. I never thought of it that Davidson Rusia's testimony was too fantastic, too preposterous, and how can anybody who was under the influence of drugs under that time remember everything clearly? No new evidence or did Davide Jr. et al refuse to do further tests? I mean, innocents die as DNA goes untested. The Chiong case should be a serious blot on Davide Jr. et al too:
Conspiracy theories surround the case. A policeman who worked on the case said last week he thought Larrañaga was innocent. Only one body was found, which was identified as Marijoy’s, but there are serious doubts about whether it is in fact her – even from the original trial judge. What’s more, there are rumours that one or both sisters is living in Canada. A DNA test would establish whether the body is Marijoy, but the supreme court has said no. The president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, promised on Monday that she would intervene to save Larrañaga.
In the Philippines, witness testimony, especially in rape crimes, is often considered strong enough evidence to convict, says Faisal Saifee, a barrister from Fair Trials Abroad, a UK-based charity that helps European Union citizens accused of crimes abroad. This and the cost of a DNA test explains the court’s reluctance, he says.
But it doesn’t just happen in the Philippines. There are many examples in the US of possible miscarriages of justice that could have been overturned by a DNA test post-conviction. Perhaps the most notorious is the case of Jackie Elliot, sentenced to death in 1986 for the rape and murder of a woman in Austin, Texas.
Elliot’s defence team – and all 12 jurors – wanted DNA testing of blood stains found on the shoes of a man arrested at the same time as Elliot, who had not been charged. The trial judge refused their requests and Elliot was executed in February 2003 despite mounting evidence of his innocence.
Why was the DNA test not even carried out? Would it hurt one bit to verify the body if it was really Marijoy? The original trial judge even blew it when he said that the body was irrelevant. Later, the judge even said it was doubtful. The so-called incorruptible judge Ocampo even fell asleep during the courtroom sessions, never gave a real fair trial, and probably assumed the suspects were already guilty. The judge asked for evidence and then refused to have the evidence examined. Worse, Davide Jr. and others didn't even bother to examine the evidence and said "There was no new evidence." It's effortless to say that there was no new evidence. Was it done because they were getting tired of the motion of reconsideration? Did Davide Jr. do it because he felt like the real perpetrators were caught and he was about to get justice? I can't be sure but those questions are worth raising up.
This case alone should add to Davide Jr.'s lack of insight. Evidence of Paco's innocence was already up. 2011 became the year when Paco's case became even more known. In 2018, the movie Jacqueline Comes Home also came out. It was that same year when Davide Jr. also tried to refute the need to amend the constitution. It's something I believe would be worth checking out. I believe it's more than time to scrutinize Davide Jr. on how he handled the Chiong Sisters' case too. Evidence of Paco's innocence was there yet he and others said, "There was no new evidence." That alone should also really question Davide Jr.'s integrity as well.
Comments
Post a Comment