However, some sections or provisions of the charter cannot be actually enforced due to the appendices adjacent those provisions, which often contain the phrase “as provided by law”. Such a caveat represents the creation of enforcement limitations. Examples include Section 43 on rights to compulsory education, Section 39 on freedom of communication, Section 52 on an individual’s right of free access to public healthcare. Although the constitution acknowledges these rights, in actual practice people still have unequal access to health services. The prices of medicines are not equal. Likewise, Section 56 provided for the use of public referendum and public hearings. But in practice these events only result in recommendations to the government that have no real effect on public project decision-making.

Besides, there is Section 60 on the people’s right to participate in decision-making by public officials, which however cannot be enforced as there is no organic law to support such a right.

The fact that there is no organic law to support these provisions has an impact on court ruling on issues pertaining to sections that end with that phrase. When there is no law to enforce, those constitutional rights naturally cannot be exercised.

As such, when the new constitution is being drafted, there should be amendments to some wordings in the Constitution in order to eliminate those legal constraints and enable effective enforcement—as truly intended by the charter drafters.  

 Deleting the phrase “as provided by law”

Many of the rights and liberties provided in the 1997 charter cannot be enforced in practice due to those wordings, as courts often ruled in the direction that organic laws supporting those rights and liberties have to be in place before those rights can be exercised. However, in reality, those rights and liberties had already been acknowledged, through their being spelled out in the Constitution—the nation’s highest law.  

Deleting the wordings “as provided by law” will not cause any damage. As the nation’s highest law, it is understood that the Constitution provides a broad, general stipulation of principles and approaches that naturally calls for additional organic laws. Hence, deleting the phrase should help end the dispute or solve problems relating to the misinterpretation of constitutional intentions. With or without the organic laws, the rights provided in the Charter should be readily enforceable.

Stipulating the timeframe for issue of organic laws

In case where the Constitution intends for the issue of organic laws, I am of the view that the timeframe for the issue of those laws should be clearly stipulated. For example, it should be written that organic laws relating to people’s rights and liberties should be issued within one or two years in order to guarantee those constitutional rights and increase the rights to protection in a more specific manner.

As such, another precaution is that there must be a clear definition and description of the rights and liberties to be protected so as to ensure correct interpretation. In the past, for example, Section 46 that stipulates “the rights of indigenous communities” on the subject of community rights or community forests remains ambiguous and disputable. Similarly, the definition of the rights of individuals or consumers does not stipulate the nature or aspect of protection, while the provisions relating to the people’s rights to participate according to Section 60 of the 1997 Constitution also lack clarity and are not supported by specific laws that allow actual enforcement. 

Realizing thus, the charter drafters should pay special attention to the language or wordings so as not to create limitations or interpretation that distort the drafters’ true intentions. This is also to prevent any damage after the Constitution has been announced, which in turn would require a complicated and wasteful revision. Such limitations or ambiguity would also result in the charter’s being seen as the shoddy outcome of substandard deliberations.

            Finally, whether or not the 2007 constitution will truly be the people’s charter depends on the drafters’ consideration regarding the law’s actual enforcement and benefit to the public. The charter should not exist merely as a respectable piece of writing, it must be enforceable to uphold people’s rights and liberties.