Recto withdraws bid to amend economic provisions of charter

Senator Ralph Recto. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Senate Minority Leader Ralph Recto on Wednesday took back his proposal to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, saying changing the charter at this time may be used for political ends by President Rodrigo Duterte’s allies.

Recto announced the withdrawal of his resolution seeking charter change during a hearing of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes chaired by Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon.

Recto “is totally against any amendment to the Constitution at this point,” Drilon said.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Recto said he was particularly against a shift to a federal system of government, a priority of the Duterte administration.

“I’m in favor of proposing amendments to the economic provisions in the Charter, but I know that the purpose today is more political. So I don’t want to be a part of that, and that’s why I withdrew my resolution,” Recto said.

Recto warned that turning the Philippines into a federal republic would “do more harm than good.”

He said the federal system would mean additional bureaucracy, taxes and red tape.

“You know, if you’re growing by 7 to 10 percent today—7 percent real growth, 10 percent nominally—by doing that, you might destroy the economy,” he said.

Drilon’s committee had a “very substantial discussion” with legal luminaries, among them members of the 1986 constitutional commission.

One of them, former Comelec Chair Christian Monsod, said changing the charter now was a “dangerous move,” noting that the administration was determined to shift to federalism. This could serve to condone the President’s “authoritarian ways of governing,” he added.

“Charter change toward authoritarianism, even if well-meaning, imperils our democracy and should not be allowed to happen,” he said.

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., said a proposal to shift to a federal system “miserably lost” during the debates on the 1987 Constitution because it “cannot fit” into the country’s history, culture, traditions, character and experiences.