Lesson 7

Mandated Topics Issues

The following are topics issues by the national government through Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) and Department of Education (DepEd) to be integrated lessons in
Social Sciences. These are the Agrarian Reform Program, Philippine Constitution and
Taxation.

1. The Philippine Constitution

The constitutional issues are centered in the following constitutions; 1898 Malolos
Constitution, 1973 Constitution, and 1987 Constitution.
a. Issues on the 1899 Malolos Constitution

The 1899 Malolos Constitution was the first democratic, organic law ever made by the
Filipinos. It was written by Felife G. Calderon, a Filipino lawyer and a descendant of a
Franciscan friar of Santa Ana Manila, with the advise of Cayetano Arellano, a brilliant
lawyer. This constitution was borrowed from the Constitution of France, Belgium, Mexico,
Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Guatemala because the Filipino resembled the people of
these countries in religion, culture, and psychology. The Constitution established a free
and independent Republic of the Philippines. It created a popular representative
government based on the three separate powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial
power.

But the most crucial and contentious issues in the Revolutionary Congress that created
the 1899 Malolos Constitution pertained to the separation of church and state which was
by a mere one vote.
 Until now, this episode in the Philippine history has not received a satisfactory
explanation. The debate in Malolos was profoundly divisive because the two sides were
driven by differing visions of national community. A crucial point was the Filipinization of
the Catholic Church, which the proponents of church state unity championed and which
their opponents sidestepped. Even as the debate raged, however, Aguinaldo’s revolutionary
government acted on the church-state issue out of political expediency. In the end, the
issue that Filipino elites could not resolve was settled by US colonialism, which imposed
church-state separation without Filipinization.

b. Issues on the 1935 Malolos Constitution

In the 1935 Philippine Constitution was drafted by the delegates of the Constitutional
Convention (Con-con) who were elected in 1934. Claro M. Recto was elected president of
the convention. The delegates crafted the 1935 Constitution.
 Salient features of the 1935 Constitution include the following: a bicameral legislature
composed of a senate and House of Representatives. The Presidents is to be elected to a
four-year term together with the Vice-President without re-election; rights of suffrage by
male citizens of the Philippines who are twenty-one years of age or over and are able to
read and write; extension of the right of suffrage to women within two years of the
constitution.

The draft of the constitution was approved by the convention on February 8, 1935 and
ratified by Pres. Roosevelt in Washington D.C on March 25, 1935 and not by the Filipino
people. Elections were held in September 1935, Manuel L. Quezon was elected as the
president of the Commonwealth. The 1935 Constitution provided the legal basis of the
Commonwealth Government which was considered a transition government before the
granting of the Philippine independence with American-inspired constitution; the
Philippine government would eventually pattern its government system after American
government.
The Controversy:

Controversy divided the Philippine legislature with the debate on the acceptance or
rejection of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Bill brought home by Osmena-Roxas mission from the
US Congress in 1931, which provided for a 10-year transition period before the granting of
Philippine independence. The passage of the independence bill resulted in the splitting of
the Democrata Party and Nacionalista Party into two factions; the Pros and Antis. Majority
in the legislature led by Quezon and Recto rejected the said bill, thereby composing the
Antis, while the pros became the Minority under Osmena, Roxas and others.

On October 17, 1933, Quezon and others triumphed in this battle as the Philippine
legislature rejected the bill. Quezon and others triumphed in this battle as the Philippine
legislature rejected the bill. Quezon eventually brought in from the United states the
Tydings-McDuffie, a slightly amended version of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting bill signed by
President Franklin Roosevelt on March 24, 1934. The bill set July 4 after the tenth year
of the commonwealth as date of Philippine independence. This was accepted by the
Philippine Legislature on May 1, 1934.

c. Issues on the 1973 Philippine Constitution

In March 20, 2016. Tony La Vina made historical account entitled “Travesty of the 1973
Constitution”. It is presented hereof with some modifications:

While reformists called called for the convening of the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
the Marcos forces eventually hijacked it; as a consequence, the 1973 Constitution was
turned into a tool by the Marcos regime to perpetuate itself in power.

Having declared martial law earlier, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86 calling for
the cancellation of the plebiscite and instituted barangay’s citizens assemblies to ratify the
new constitution by a referendum from 10-15 January 1973. This was challenged before the
Supreme Court in what became known as the ratification and plebiscite cases.
These involved petitions assailing the proposed ratification upon the grounds, among
others, that the presidential decree “has no force and effects as law because the calling…of
such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of
the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the
appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodge exclusively in
Congress…” and “there is no proper submission to the people there being no freedom of
speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient toime to inform the people of
the contents thereof.”

While the case was being heard, Marcos, on January 17, 1973 issued Proclamation No.
1102 certifying and proclaiming that the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino
people and thereby was in effect. This proclamation was questioned in Javellana v.
Executive Secretary, which saw the Supreme Court severely divided on the issues. Despite
the voting, the Court decision stated in its dispositive portion that, “This being the vote of
the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle then, there as no Supreme Court ruling
that the 1973 Constitution has been validly ratification in accordance with law and
Participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court “resolution” could not be considered an outright

authoritarian regime in the Philippines. Later on, because of this legitimation by the
Supreme Court, Marcos and his supporters would claim that his regime was one of
constitutional authoritarianism.

Chief Justice Roberto Conception, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissented
from the Javellana case, and famously added “I dissent.” right after the dispositive portion.
Disappointed by the Court’s decision, Conception would opt for early retirement. Later, he
would have the last word as in the Chief Justice would later chair the Judiciary committee of
the Constitutional Commission that would draft the 1987 Constitution. In the latter
constitution, Conception made sure that never again would the Supreme Court shirk from its
solemn duty to decide the most important disputes in our society.
 During its lifetime, several amendments to the 1973 Constitution were introduced.
These were initially either initiated primarily to perpetuate Marcos’ one-man rule, as
exemplified by the aforementioned Amendment No. 6, or introduced to construct some
semblance of democracy to his unpopular regime by experimenting with various political
systems like the French presidential system. The referenda and plebiscites that were
conducted to ratify the amendments were all rigged, orchestrated, and made possible by
his total control of governmental agencies like the bureaucracy, the military, and the
Supreme Court.

d. Issues on the 1987 Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Constitution had some doubts, conflicts, and controversies, These include the
death penalty, economic policies, land reform, form of government, and even the
retention of American military bases in Clark and Subic among others.
Other issues are:

• Choice of the presidential system over a parliamentary system and a unitary system
against a federal system. The three branches of government are separated.
• And equal but neither is true formally and in the operational code of actual exercise of
power
• The president has almost have total control of the budget which explains why
legislators easily abandon their political parties to join the administration coalition
• Lingering legal shadows of martial law which give the president the power to declare
martial law
• Several issues were the subject of heated discussions within concern that drifted the
law. Film director Lino Brocka was among the member who walked out from the
Concon. Brocka was responsible in insulting the freedom of expression clause in Article
III, Section 4 as the word “freedom”.
2. The Agrarian reform Issue

Corazon Aquino’s presidency launched the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

(Republic Act No. 6650) on June 10, 1985. It became centerpiece of the government with
respect to agrarian reform.

The Arroyo administration passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

Extension and Reform (CARPER)-Republic Act No. 9700 on August 7, 2009. This did not
supersede the CARL (R.A No. 6651) but instead, it intended to strengthen and improve the
CARL.

This means that agrarian reform progress will continue even when all landless farmers
have owned a piece of agricultural land. The DAR is expected to proceed with its delivery of
support services mandated in R.A 6657.
 However, there are five (5) issues that the farmers from Kaisahan Tungo sa Kaunlaran
ng Kanayunan at Repormang Pansakahan (KAISAHAN) wants President Duterte to
address in the agrarian sector.

These are enumerated as follows:

Problems on Installation and Positioning of the Beneficiaries of Agrarian Reform to

their land.

According to the group, in many parts of Mindanao and Luzon, farmers cannot
occupy their land due to titles being hidden in Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
offices. In the Visayas, landlords are using “delaying tactics” to prevent farmers from
occupying their land, despite land titles already in the possession of the farmers.

The group asked for a nationwide inventory of installed and uninstalled Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) for a better monitoring of the program.
 According to data from DAR, about 12,000 landholdings nationwide with a total area
of close to 127,000 hectares have not yet been issued Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) notices of coverage (NOC) or do not have valid NOCs. The lack of NOCs
means that the government has not yet done any of the 27 steps to have the
landholdings acquired and distributed through the program.

a. Weak Implementation of Agrarian Programs

In their experience, farmers have observed that DAR officials do not have the political
will to implement their programs. These were observed to happen when a threat of a
lawsuit towards DAR officials come from the old landlord.

The farmers asked for security and protection to the officials of DAR who are involved
in CARP.
 In fact, under the Aquino administration, the DAR failed to meet its target of 198,000
hectares of farmland to CARP beneficiaries, hitting only 18% of the target, showing a lack
of implementation, despite reforms made in the current administration.

It has also been observed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization that “true
reform can only come from pressure groups such as members of NGOs, political
organizations, and sympathetic reform officials.”

b. Cancellation of Titles or Certificate of land Ownership Award (CLOA)

Some of the farmers have had their land titles cancelled for many reasons. This is one
of the reasons why DAR officials are stopping the installation of the ARBs.

According to the Official Gazette, “some titles were destroyed, and had to be reissued
through a court process, similar to filing a case.”
 These cases, according to a study from the University of the Philippines, can take at
least 148 days for processing even in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

c. Human Rights Violations

The farmers believed that violation of their land rights, is also a violation of their
human rights. With threats and even killing of their fellow farmers, in order to evict them
from their own land, they believe that this form of abuse should be stopped.

During a protest by farmers from Negros and Batangas provinces in June 2014, Task
Force Mapalad President Jose Rodito Angeles asserted that these have become the cost of
fighting for agrarian reform.

“If there were victories under the Aquino version of the CARP, these were mostly won
not through the government’s political will but by the efforts of peasants who fought with
their lives and limbs to reclaim the land they have been tilling for decades,” Angeles said.
d. Conflicting Laws

Despite the farmers’ faith in CARP, they recognized that it incurs some problems
because some provisions of CARP are in conflict with the law. This includes problems with
zoning conversion where some arable lands are being used for mining.

The issue of a genuine agrarian reform program in the Philippines is a centuries-old

problem. Since the Spanish and American colonial periods to the present administration
of Duterte, it remains a clamor of landless Filipino farmers like the KAISAHAN farmers. It is
still an issue and promise often heard during national elections campaign, but usually
unheard or even forgotten since the candidates were already elected.

3. Issue on Taxation in the Philippines

Taxation started during the Spanish time in the Philippines. The Filipinos were
Compelled to pay tribute (tax) to pay for the administration of the country, construction of
churches, government buildings, roads, bridges, and improvement of transportation and
communication.

Originally, the tribute was 8 reales (one real is equivalent to 12 centavos) but was
raised to 10 in 1602, then increased to 12 in 1851. Those who were required to pay taxes
were individuals from 16 years old to 60 years old paid half of the imposed tribute.

The natives did not like the way the tribute was collected because the encomenderos
became very wealthy and reaped huge profit from it.

Because of such abuse, the King of Spain abolished it in 1884. In its place, the cedula
(residence tax or community tax) served as an income tax and personal identification of
the inhabitants. Another burden on the people was the bandala in many cases, the
products were not paid for.
 In the Philippines today, these are the two kinds of taxes and local taxes. National taxes
are imposed by the national government through the National Internal Revenue Code,
Tariff and Customs Code. Local taxes are those collected by the local government units
(LGU) based on Local Government Code. Some of these local taxes are the real property tax
and community tax. Taxes are paid for the use of public services, construction of
infrastructural projects, for the salaries of the government employees, for operating
expenses, and others.

According to reports, Philippine taxes disproportionately burden the poor and benefit
the rich, but they also yield two little revenue given the distortions they create.

The plan, originally crafted by the Department of Finance, aims for a “simpler, fairer,
and more efficient” tax system that will promote investments, create jobs, and reduce
poverty. Many sectors have expressed support for it, including a group of former DOF and
NEDA secretaries.
 But some lawmakers have branded the tax proposal as “heartless” and “anti-poor”
because of, say, the planned increase on fuel taxes. Others have also questioned certain
spending items in the General Appropriations Act of 2017 that do not merit the additional
revenues that tax reform will yield.