In an editorial entitled “Political Mischief in the Philippines,” the New York Times criticized PNoy on the possibility of amending the constitution in order to clip the powers of the judiciary. This after the Supreme Court had clipped the powers of the executive under the Disbursement Acceleration Program.
On its face, the editorial refers to a constitution in general and the fact that the constitution of the Philippines has been passed under the term of PNoy’s mother, then President Cory. Apparently, the point of reference is the editorial writer’s constitution, i.e. the U. S. Constitution. Had the writer pored over the constitution of the Philippines, perhaps he would not have been as critical on a charter change. A single provision in the present constitution is the single best argument for charter change. This is because while the constitution, both the US and the Philippines, provides for three branches of government, which, though supposed to be co-equal and independent of each other, hence, may act in whichever way they choose, are reined in course for the common good by the principles of checks and balances. Under the Philippine constitution, this solitary provision in fact unbalances the time-honored principle. A comparison of the US and the Philippines on the judiciary and the power of judicial review easily supports this submission.
On its face, the editorial refers to a constitution in general and the fact that the constitution of the Philippines has been passed under the term of PNoy’s mother, then President Cory. Apparently, the point of reference is the editorial writer’s constitution, i.e. the U. S. Constitution. Had the writer pored over the constitution of the Philippines, perhaps he would not have been as critical on a charter change. A single provision in the present constitution is the single best argument for charter change. This is because while the constitution, both the US and the Philippines, provides for three branches of government, which, though supposed to be co-equal and independent of each other, hence, may act in whichever way they choose, are reined in course for the common good by the principles of checks and balances. Under the Philippine constitution, this solitary provision in fact unbalances the time-honored principle. A comparison of the US and the Philippines on the judiciary and the power of judicial review easily supports this submission.