Are 1987 Constitution Fanatics Willing to Amend (or Even DELETE) Article XVII of Their So-Called Inviolate Constitution?

-

I could read people who keep saying, "The 1987 Constitution is inviolate! It should never be amended because it's the sacred law of the land." However, that's in total contradiction with Article XVII which says the following:

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. 

Popular posts from this blog

Was Cesar Virata's Position as "Prime Minister" the Best Proof That a Parliamentary System Won't Work in the Philippines?

-
Image
Kahimyang Project It's often said by some of the now-old folks that the Philippines was once under a parliamentary system. I had some insults from a close-minded political scientist, some former dancer of an OFW, and others whenever I said, "We must shift to the parliamentary system!" They would say, "Look stupid! We already had a parliamentary system back in the Marcos Years!" I ask for the proof and they keep using Cesar Virata. By using insults, they start to make me doubt their credibility. It's because insults and other forms of Ad Hominem attacks are often the favorite tools of sore losers .  I would like to give this an example. One of their best sources is Cesar Virata. At first, it sounds like, "Okay, we had a parliamentary system." However, we must take note that not every country that has a prime minister, is under a parliamentary system. Some of them are still presidential in nature with parliamentary features . I wonder if Mrs. Raissa
Read more

Shifting to the Parliamentary System is Better than Banning Political Dynasties

-
Image
Some Filipinos who are totally against charter change (or constitutional reform) always use political dynasties as an excuse. It's not enough that some of them should keep saying that economic charter change will mean "selling the Philippines to foreigners". Please, if they realize it, developed countries allow 100% FDI ownership--allowing foreigners to own 100% of their business . Back on the topic, I would like to discuss political dynasties and why they're not necessarily bad . Some people keep talking about the anti-political dynasty law--that is one per family. It might be because they still think the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system. Please, evidence has been gathered that it was never a parliamentary system, to begin with (read here )!  It's easy to talk about political dynasties. Some people were citing President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as a member of a political dynasty. Some people also cite the Dutertes. I even
Read more

REAL TALK: The Liberal Party of the Philippines Can ONLY Become The Genuine Opposition Under A Genuine Parliamentary Constitution

-
Image
PhilStar It's difficult to talk with people who are still comfortable with what they already know, right? However, the term Dilawan need not be drowned in negativity, but it can be drowned in negativity if the brand gets marred in a popularity-based political system. The Philippines currently uses the presidential system. If we were in a parliamentary system right now--chances are Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. wouldn't be prime minister due to the difficulty involved as explained in  " How to Become Singapore's Prime Minister, Explained in 7 Steps ". That means all candidates would need to do the following: Study and specialize Wait for the call Tea sessions and panels Take a test Perform well as an MP Win the trust of your peers Prepare for office The Dilawans can call themselves the genuine opposition, march in their proud yellow t-shirts, and more. However, under a presidential system, there's no real opposition, and the platform of any party
Read more

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

-
Image
People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir
Read more

Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad: Just a Matter of Strong Leadership Without a Good System?

-
Image
Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T
Read more

The Vizconde Massacre and Trial by "Trust Me Bro"?

-
Image
As Christmas approaches, another case worth revisiting for history vs. gossip is the Vizconde Massacre. I watched Crime Investigation Asia uploaded on YouTube. I wrote about the documentary Give Up Tomorrow -- a documentary that explores the irregularities while pursuing justice for the late Chiong sisters, Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong and Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I feel compelled to write about the Vizconde Massacre. For more than 10 years, I used to believe that Hubert Jeffry Pagaspas Webb, son of Freddie Webb, was guilty. It turns out that according to Crime Investigation Asia --it was really a trial by gossip . In my case, I want to call it a trial of Trust Me Bro.  I still read comments about how footage of Hubert in the States could've been "easily tampered". Yet, those who comment haven't presented the evidence. I guess if I asked for their evidence, they'll just say, "Trust me bro!" Granted, photo editing was still in its infancy back then so how cou
Read more

Was the Late John Regala Interviewed by the Directors of "Give Up Tomorrow"?

-
Image
The passing away of John Regala hit today. I remembered a film called Animal (2004) in  which the original title was originally Butakal meaning male pig. Regala starred as Jaco Lozano--an obvious caricature of Juan Francisco Gonzales Larrañaga aka Paco. Strangely enough, neither the Larrañagas nor the Osmeñas were heard to have ever filed a case against the late director Toto Natividad. Instead, it was the Chiong family that filed a lawsuit against Natividad. I did write about  whether or not Natividad himself was interviewed by the directors of Give Up Tomorrow . As mentioned, there was over 400 hours worth of footage and over 100 interviews done . Both Marty Syjuco and Michael Collins may have interviewed not only Natividad, the late Tony Calvento but also Regala himself since he played the film's main antagonist . In 2018, we had an incident when Niño Muhlach apologized to Paco for the portrayal in The Calvento Files . Apparently, Niño himself wasn't interviewed but was prob
Read more

Trust Me Bro: The 1987 Constitution is the Best in the World!

-
I may be no lawyer or constitutionalist but it's time to use common sense . I'm afraid common sense is hardly taught or even encouraged in schools. Right now, I want to do this provocative entry to ask, "Fact or gossip: Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines the best in the world?" Yes, you read that right. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that last 2018 and I'm still laughing at it. I've decided to write this common-sense post to actually contest the idea that, "The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the best in the world."  I'm laughing at some things Davide Jr. had said such as, "It' is the only institution in the world where the public office is a public trust." However, this man is terribly wrong because, around the world, we see the doctrine where public office is a public trust. Thomas Jefferson also said that public office is public trust -- way before Davide Jr. was born into the world! I really laughed at their claim o
Read more

Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan and Discovering More About One's Common Austronesian Roots

-
Image
I was doing some research on Taiwan finding out that the natives are indeed Austronesians . It seems that Indonesians and Malaysians may have also settled in Taiwan aside from the Philippines. A look at Mt. Alishan and Banaue Rice Terraces have a similarity. Taiwan has its famous tea terraces. Banaue has its famous rice terraces. Both are cultural heritages that must be preserved! I soon found an article which Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan. Not surprisingly, these Ifugao OFWs can point out several things that are pretty similar. An article called " A Gotad Picnic With Ifugaos Living in Taiwan " would tell of Armand Camhol, an Ifugao OFW, who met with other Ifugaos in Taiwan. Gotad is a thanksgiving festival for the Ifugaos. The News Lens International Edition What was noted by Armand at the end of the article is: The people of Ifugao value hospitality, and as a symbol of friendship, they shared their holiday with their invited guests, who, in return, sang, joined the dances, and made
Read more

Can Anti-Reformists Prove to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy That the Marcos Regime was a Real Parliamentary?

-
Image
The previous comparison of the CoRRECT Movement was between the late businessman John Gokongwei Jr. and Hilario Davide Jr., a public policy expert. The comparison is pretty much apples and oranges which is why Kishore Mahbubani, founder and former dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) would make more sense. It's not enough to say something. If the source is just merely Merkado CTTO (read here ) then I have every right to doubt it. I tried asking for empirical evidence  they have that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was a parliamentary government. The only evidence they have was that there was a prime minister and his name was Cesar Virata. However, further details reveal that Virata was a non-starter and a no leader. From Third World to First , Virata was even considered a candidate to replace the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, a president with powers . A challenge that I want to pose to people who still insist that the Marcos Years were indeed under a parli
Read more