As of now, i'm not in favor of changing the constitution. There is nothing wrong with our constitution. We have so many laws that are not even properly implemented. Even if we change it a hundred times, if the people in the administration will always have personal interest of their own that often neglect the citizens, still nothing will happen. What we need is a character change. A truly honest and devoted people is what we need for the government to progress. Do we still have those kind of people? Maybe yes, maybe no more.
There were so many attempts to change the 1987 Constitutions:
The first Charter Change attempt on the 1987 Constitution was under former President Fidel V. Ramos. Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a parliamentary system and the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes will bring more accountability, continuity and responsibility to the "gridlock" prone Philippine version of presidential bicameral system.
Second is under President Joseph Estrada, there was a similar attempt to change the 1987 constitution. The process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development. Unlike Charter change under Ramos and Arroyo the CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would only amend the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as impeding the entry of more foreign investments in the Philippines.
Under the Arroyo administration, there were more solid attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. The proposals included: a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
All these proposal will only benifits the incumbent admistration. So why change?
There were so many attempts to change the 1987 Constitutions:
The first Charter Change attempt on the 1987 Constitution was under former President Fidel V. Ramos. Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a parliamentary system and the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes will bring more accountability, continuity and responsibility to the "gridlock" prone Philippine version of presidential bicameral system.
Second is under President Joseph Estrada, there was a similar attempt to change the 1987 constitution. The process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development. Unlike Charter change under Ramos and Arroyo the CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would only amend the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as impeding the entry of more foreign investments in the Philippines.
Under the Arroyo administration, there were more solid attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. The proposals included: a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
All these proposal will only benifits the incumbent admistration. So why change?
No comments:
Post a Comment