Are 1987 Constitution Fanatics Willing to Amend (or Even DELETE) Article XVII of Their So-Called Inviolate Constitution?
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
Nothing in that provision says, "Thou shalt not amend the 1987 Constitution!" In fact, what the late Fidel V. Ramos did was most likely not illegal. Ramos wanted to call a constitutional convention because the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines badly needed updates. It was in the 1990s and Ramos probably realized that, "Okay, we do need to amend the constitution now!" However, some people tried the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as some kind of "sacred document". I even heard the late Cardinal Jaime Sin (along with others which I believe included Archbishop Socrates Villegas) treated it as some divine piece of paper instead of an important document that can be revised when need be.
I'm amazed at how often the late Lee Kuan Yew is quoted against the Marcoses but did they truly read From Third World to First properly? I doubt they did. I remember having ordered the book from Shopee two years ago. From pages 304-305, this can be read. I believe LKY had given us a clue as to why Ramos' plan for charter change failed:
Mrs. Aquino's successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In the speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference. I said, "I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy." In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that the British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.
He knew the difficulties of trying to government with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave the country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds and thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of the American constitution.
The next paragraph talks about the Marcoses. The reason why I'm omitting it here isn't because I disagree with it but because of the focus of this article. I'm going to really focus on what LKY said. I believe Filipinos have long ignored it. Ramos already saw the problems of what might be best described as an interim constitution. Later on, one of the framers namely Dr. Bernardo Villegas, admits that it was flawed. I guess the fanatics will now call Dr. Villegas a "traitor" never mind that the Constitution itself is open to amendments?
The dilemma for those who say that the 1987 Constitution shouldn't be amended is this. They need to make an amendment that will make the 1987 Constitution an inviolate law. Come on, there's already Article XVII which really gives the 1987 Constitution room for improvement. In short, having a democratically done charter change isn't illegal. Even having changes within the constitution can be done legally. The 1987 Constitution could've undergone many changes such as during the time of FVR. Instead, people decided to start spreading wrong information about the parliamentary system such as, "If a president rules for more than six years, it must be scary!" Never mind that the late Pol Pot only ruled Cambodia for four years but he's had more to answer for than the 20 years that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. ever would. Millions massacred in just a short reign should be scarier than LKY's authoritative regime of 31 years!
Are these people willing to finally rewrite Article XVII or even delete it from their inviolate constitution? Maybe, finally, give it an introduction that would look like this:
This new amendment of the 1987 inviolate constitution of the Philippines, will make it that nothing in this sacred law shall be amended. Any effort to do so shall be deemed illegal. The words of Atty. Christian Monsod, Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr., and the other framers of the 1987 Constitution must be regarded as holy and infallible. Hence, thereby, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, with the blessing of Archbishop Socrates Villegas, Archbishop Roderick Pabillo, et al. will declare this the best constitution not just for Filipinos but also the best constitution in the world, as provided by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the CBCP headquarters. Therefore, any move to amend it will be illegal and blasphemous.
In passing such a law, they would have already amended the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which was submitted with Article XVII in mind. I would be laughing if they would try and say, "But this is a divine revelation!" Okay, did they just use that excuse and did they overlook Article XVII? I'm really laughing thinking about whether the attempt to revise or even delete Article XVII, just for the sake of making an outdated constitution, the forever constitution of the Philippines, should be done.
Besides, the very words of Mrs. Aquino said that the 1987 Constitution was never to be set in stone:
You must define and protect our individual freedoms and rights; you must decide how our different institutions of state will relate to each other. Do not be distracted by political debates and matters of policy that do not belong within your constitution-making exercise. You are here appointed, by the people’s wish, to write a constitution; you are not here as elected politicians.
Bear in mind that you shall be pondering, debating and writing a constitution not only for our contemporaries with their present concerns, but also for succeeding generations of Filipinos whose first concerns we cannot presume to know beforehand. Future Filipinos must always be free to decide how to address these concerns as they arise. Even the wisest cures for present maladies should not be imposed on succeeding generations that will have their own unique problems and priorities.
True and long-lived constitutions, a wise justice has told me, should be broad enough to be able to meet every exigency we cannot foretell and specific enough to stoutly protect the essentials of a true democracy; in short, open-ended documents that will always be relevant. Remember that constitutional changes are not safe or easy to come by. Our first attempt at constitutional revision was followed by a dictatorship. And this, our second endeavor, was preceded by a revolution.
Future Filipinos and their legislatures and Supreme Courts can best assess and address the challenges they will meet if they enjoy the widest latitude of thought and action. In writing a constitution have the fullest confidence that the wisdom of our race is exhausted in us. Our race has grown in wisdom over time. I believe it will continue to do so.
Yours is indeed no easy task. On the other hand, depending on the result, yours will be no small glory. Our people have suffered much.
In short, Mrs. Aquino did recognize that constitutional changes aren't always safe. She even recognized that a revolution was there. What she reminded me is that the need of a broad constitution is needed, an open-ended document that will always be relevant. But what's life without taking some risks? A revolution was really needed because the 1973 Constitution was really indeed defective.
The very idea that Mrs. Aquino even says is that future Filipinos must always be free to decide on what changes will happen. With what she said about the wisest cures for the present maladies, what is effective today may no longer work tomorrow. That's why FVR wanted to reform the constitution. Instead, fear-mongering had caused Filipinos, who had the responsibility to address concerns, to be given the wrong information. I wonder how many Filipinos even know that Article XVII exists?
With that in mind, the 1987 Constitution should be treated as a stepping stone like Windows 95, the typewriter, the floppy disk, and the negatives in a camera. Sure, they did help back then but not everything that helped back then can help us now. Unfortunately, treating the 1987 Constitution like it was some infallible piece of paper indeed, didn't help matters. Also, for the 1987 Constitution to exist, the 1973 Constitution had to be repealed as well.