Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

 

I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha. It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already tarnished image in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. also led a similar revolution against the unjust British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult the writings of that "Bumbay" known as Kishore Mahbubani. 

Some old-school boomers who were there during EDSA still insist on several myths. One of the myths they insist on was the Marcos "parliamentary system". Never mind that Marcos Sr. himself said that the Philippines was still presidential before he was overthrown. Never mind that the late Lee Kuan Yew, whom they love to quote about the Marcoses, called Cesar Virata a non-starter to lead the Philippines. How can Virata be considered a prime minister in a parliamentary system if he was a non-starter? They may say parliamentary worked in Singapore because LKY isn't corrupt like Marcos Sr. They say they're not saying parliamentary is evil (which I dared them to tell what they said to the Singaporean government). Instead, they say the parliamentary countries I cited are better because of better leaders. Never mind that the leadership system is what keeps a leader in check. The same is true for the Constitution.

Do we forget that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines had to be replaced?

During EDSA, what kept Marcos Sr. in power anyway but his constitution? By the way, before Ninoy died, he had a press conference in Japan. Ninoy also said many words about the Marcos "parliament" such as how it was pretty much 80 Days Around the World. The initial proclamation was the British type and went to the French type. I think Ninoy could've mentioned the Chinese type. Marcos Sr. also met with another despot named Mao Zedong. Later on, Ninoy's widow, the late Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino also met with the late Deng Xiaoping. The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was what kept Marcos Sr. in power. 

Can you imagine if EDSA 1986 happened but the 1973 Constitution was never removed? My issue with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is how outdated it has become. Also, that piece of paper was never meant to be the "forever constitution" of the Philippines then why does Article XVII even exist? Even more, for the likes of the anti-cha cha proponents to well, illegalize it, they need to delete that provision 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.

It's because the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines doesn't say, "Therefore, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines shall be inviolate and the forever constitution of the Philippines." For that to happen, the framers really need to pass that amendment and many diehard fanatics don't even want to amend it. In short, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines failed to do its job properly like old-fashioned office equipment. Like a typewriter or fax machine, those aren't practical in contrast to having PCs and the use of electronic mail and modern forms of standard mail. That's why I refused to fax a document due to how high risk it can be. Back in college, an answer key that was faxed, was stolen. A fax machine is really annoying and the thermal paper fades away. 

Remembering Tita Cory, a woman who was the national symbol of unity for EDSA

Even the very words of Mrs. Aquino, who LKY mentioned several times in From Third World to First, had even said this:

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, not even Mrs. Aquino intended to make the 1987 Constitution the "forever constitution". The very words that said, that future Filipinos must be free to decide, that there should be broadness in it, and in short, that the 1987 Constitution, was meant to be broad and meet every exigency and that it must be open to change. Indeed, it's not easy to come by. But as Mrs. Aquino emphasized, even the best measures for present maladies should not be imposed on future generations, and they will have their very own specific problems. It's pretty much like Windows evolved in different forms and I want to get a new CPU so I can use Windows 11 now. 

Nothing in Mrs. Aquino's own words would say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is to be treated like some sort of sacred writing. Nothing in her words says something like that a divine revelation fell from Heaven and gave us the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Nothing like that! However, some people still want to treat the 1987 Constitution as "inviolate". Maybe, compare that to a person who still wants to use Windows 95 when it's 2023. Maybe, we can also compare that to a person who still wants to use negatives when digital camera is now the thing. 

Later on, LKY also said this in From Third World to First about the late Fidel V. Ramos: 

Mrs. Aquino's succesor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a 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 British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislative was also in the govenrment. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.

I think Ramos had to differ because people associated the parliamentary system with Marcos Sr. Okay, just think about why people hate the Marcoses, quoting LKY, who by the way is a member of a parliamentary system? According to some stubborn boomer of a political scientist I ran into on Facebook, it's only because LKY wasn't corrupt, and Marcos Sr. was corrupt, that's why the parliamentary system worked in Singapore. He even taunted me to just go and live in Singapore instead. I even showed him the evidence of what Ninoy said and the timeline that proved that Marcos Sr.'s regime was far from a real parliamentary. LKY met with Virata. LKY even called Virata a non-starter to replace Marcos Sr. In short, one can view Virata as nothing more than an executive assistant and no ideal leader to replace Marcos Sr. In fact, Virata may not even be the best qualified Head of Government should Mrs. Aquino become the Head of State! 

Mrs. Aquino was hiding in a convent in Cebu during EDSA. People were looking up to her because of her status as the widow of an assassinated senator. Until now, it seems that the knowledge of who truly masterminded the assassination will not be made public. After reading Third World to First, LKY talked about Marcos Sr.'s health. Marcos Sr. was deteriorating at that time. LKY met two despots on their last legs. One was Marcos Sr. and the other was Mao. Just thinking about Mrs. Aquino hiding in Cebu at that time--she never masterminded EDSA. Mrs. Aquino became that national symbol of unity. Mrs. Aquino was more qualified for a ceremonial role with someone like FVR as the prime minister.

Liputan6.com

In Singapore, the president is a ceremonial figure. The Singapore Legal Advice states these roles and Mrs. Aquino could've been given these roles too:

What are the role and powers of the Singapore President?

As stated on the Istana’s official website, the President plays 3 crucial roles:

Ceremonial role: As the Head of State, the President officiates at state events, and represents Singapore on the global stage in cultivating and enhancing relationships with other countries. 

Community role: The President may lend weight to and promote social and charitable causes, as well as attend community events. 

Constitutional role: The President has powers provided for under the Constitution which he or she may exercise. These powers can be classified into 3 categories, namely, financial powers, powers concerning the appointment of key office holders, and miscellaneous powers.

During the times of crisis, Mrs. Aquino could've been evacuated while FVR as prime minister, could take the actual role. The way Mrs. Aquino spoke, she was more fit for a ceremonial role, community role, and constitutional role. Mrs. Aquino could've spent more time as the Philippines' chief representative and lent weight and promoted social causes. All the while, she could've worked as someone Filipinos would look up to while a real prime minister made the decision. 

Other powers Mrs. Aquino could've had as a ceremonial head of state are:

Other than the specific powers conferred upon the President, the President is also vested with a variety of other miscellaneous powers.

The President may:

Discontinue a Parliamentary session: The President may dissolve Parliament upon the PM’s advice. 

Withhold his assent to any Bill: This excludes a Bill that aims to amend the Constitution if the Bill seeks to, directly or indirectly, circumvent or curtail the President’s discretionary powers provided for under the Constitution. 

Consent to the Director of the CPIB making inquiries or conducting investigations: Such inquiries or investigations are made in respect of any information received by the Director regarding the conduct of a person, or any allegation or complaint made against a person. 

Cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: This can be done where the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the PCRH. 

Provide concurrence for preventive detention: This is required where the advisory board constituted to ascertain whether a person should be preventively detained recommends that the person be released, and the authority which advised or ordered that person’s detention does not accept such recommendation. Such person cannot be detained, or further detained, without the President’s concurrence. 

Appoint members of the Council of Presidential Advisers: The President may appoint 3 out of the 8 members that constitute the Council, and may nominate a member of the Council to be the Chairman. 

Refer questions regarding the effect of any constitutional provision: The President may refer to a tribunal, consisting of at least 3 Supreme Court Judges, any question regarding the effect of any provision in the Constitution which has arisen or appears to the President likely to arise. 

Issue a Proclamation of Emergency: The President may issue a Proclamation of Emergency where he or she is satisfied that the security or economic life of Singapore is threatened such that it constitutes a grave emergency. 

Grant an offender clemency: This power is exercised on Cabinet’s advice. The President may also remit a sentence, penalty or forfeiture imposed by law.

Just think if FVR and Mrs. Aquino worked side by side in such a way. Instead, letting Mrs. Aquino do all the work she has no knowledge of was not good. That's why LKY was more inclined to favor FVR over Mrs. Aquino. Wouldn't it be better if FVR worked as the prime minister and Mrs. Aquino as the president?  

Like every old piece of paper, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should belong to a museum

I'm not saying that the good in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should be removed. From the Philippine Star this 2024, I'm glad Masigan continues to be for charter change. These words can ring true on how a charter change can be done:

I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.

The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.

So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.

The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.

From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.

Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.

Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.

Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.

As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.

The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.

For every good the 1987 Constitution has, there are some disadvantages. I would think about them like I think about a typewriter, an old PC, and a diskette. Back then, those things helped me with my projects. Writing a contract on a typewriter or typing names on the check did the work faster than doing them by hand. Diskettes helped me bring my work to another person's place. However, the floppy disk has become nothing more than the save icon today. The floppy disk is no longer reliable like the USB. The typewriter's layout is the inspiration for the keyboard. It's true that these things did well back in their day but they can no longer do good today. It's like how the Nokia phones did good back in their day. However, Nokia's refusal to evolve was a real issue. Today, people who can't afford iPhones would buy more affordable smartphones. 

The 1987 Constitution addresses human rights and the like. Right now, I believe that we still need the Commission on Human Rights despite my initial complaints. Having a commission on human rights is a good thing, especially in recommending new laws to help protect human rights and make sure policemen and soldiers uphold the law. However, the problem as mentioned by Masigan is that it has failed to address economic reforms. What's the use of hating Marcos Sr. who was a diehard protectionist if they still love the very economic policy that empowered the cronies? 

Having a new constitution doesn't mean that we get rid of everything good in the 1987 Constitution. It's just like how having a new Windows system doesn't change everything. We seek to improve what is already good. It's like how we went from typewriters to PCs and diskettes to USBs. It's like a newer version of Microsoft Office will help you do things better than the old versions. With every new version of Windows, don't we see improvements along the way and it's still Windows? The same goes for the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It should be treated as a stepping stone, not set in stone. An obsolete anti-virus software from 1987 won't work against newer viruses in 2024. That's what anti-virus programmers are aware of and that's why they release newer versions of the anti-virus software. If the law of the land refuses to upgrade then the people don't upgrade either.