Ateneo School of Law student org mounts debate on Charter Change amendments

On 15 March 2024, the Ateneo Law & Liberty Circle, a student organization of the Ateneo School of Law, mounted a debate on charter change entitled “To Amend or Not to Amend: That is the Question.” The debate featured two legal luminaries: retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who represented the opposition, and Atty Anthony Abad, who represented the affirmative. 

Jose Lorenzo B Angeles III, founding president of the Ateneo Law & Liberty Circle, welcomed audience members—legal experts, policy-makers, students, and advocates—to the debate. “The Constitution is more than just a document,” Angeles said. “It embodies our history, our struggles, and our dreams. It outlines the framework of our government and the rights of every Filipino.”

“As we consider amendments or a complete overhaul of this vital document,” he continued, “we must ask ourselves: How can we ensure that it continues to serve the best interests of our people? How do we preserve the freedoms and rights that are fundamental to our democracy while addressing the challenges of the modern world?”

He stressed the importance of having this conversation at this pivotal time for the country, because “the decisions we make,” Angeles added, “will shape the future of our nation. It’s a time for thoughtful discussion, critical analysis, and above all, a shared commitment to a vision of a Philippines that upholds the dignity of every Filipino and fosters a society where justice, freedom, and prosperity flourish.”

Moderated by Atty Eugene Kaw, the debate presented reasons for opposing the People’s Initiative, and reasons for being pro-amendment.

Justice Carpio identified three reasons why he opposes the current People’s Initiative, citing Santiago v COMELEC, Lambino v COMELEC, and the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment. “When the Supreme Court says, ‘This law is unconstitutional,’ it has become final. That’s it. It cannot be revived by the Supreme Court anymore. Only Congress can revive it and Congress up to now has not filed or approved any enabling law to implement the People’s Initiative.”

Moreover, he is also against it because of the current provisions in the initiative, which he believes will disrupt the checks and balances already put into place. 

Atty Abad, for his part, said: “There is actually no debate between Justice Carpio and myself. We do actually agree on the amendment. But the debate is with you, the audience, the people coming and listening here today. The debate is with you, internally, and also among yourselves. I would strongly encourage you to debate on this topic because this is the most important topic.” 

He then expressed his position, offering a methodology: amend, review, revise. He believes it is important for our Constitution to be future-proof, because it is a living document that is meant to safeguard and protect a country’s citizens. 

After expressing their positions, Justice Carpio and Atty Abad also answered four questions posed by Atty Kaw: 

• Why is there a need to change the Constitution? What is the rationale for changing—or not changing—the Constitution at this time? 
• Is this the right time for changing the Constitution?
• What would be the most appropriate modality to change our Constitution? 
• What would be the provisions in the Constitution that we want to see changed?

The debate concluded with a Q&A portion.

Watch the full discussion: