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.
The Monsods seem to run on the mindset, "Thou shalt not amend the Holy 1987 Constitution." With the Philippines being predominantly Roman Catholics--it's that easy to listen to whatever a Catholic bishop says, even without researching it up. For example, the former head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Archbishop Socrates Villegas, says something, the faithful follows without doing research. The Monsods tend to have frequent backing of the CBCP and Sister Mary John Mananzan, a Benedictine nun. They need to answer why in the world is there Article XVII. Would they be willing to amend or delete it so the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines becomes inviolate?
Speaking of the Monsodian Dialectic, here's something from the Philippine Star that makes me laugh:
“I would argue instead that we have largely failed in human development not because of the Constitution, but because we haven’t implemented it, especially its provisions on social justice and human rights and local autonomy,” Monsod told the Senate panel on constitutional amendments and revision of codes.
Monsod, however, said he believes that proponents of Charter change are “barking up the wrong tree.” He stressed that change must come from the bottom, particularly the barangays which are citizens’ first point of contact with the government.“It’s a long distance run of commitment and endurance. But until we get a new generation of leaders who come from the poor, there will be no real change in this country,” he said.
Fortunately, the Monsods aren't engineers or software developers. The recent crash caused by a wrong component of CrowdStrike should be an eye-opener. CrowdStrike pointed out that the cause of the outage was a flawed update. I can't imagine if the Monsods were the owners of CrowdStrike. They might even go as far as to say that the problem is the users of CrowdStrike--not a flaw in the program's update. Can you imagine if Bill Gates of Microsoft had to deal with the Monsods as software developers? Fortunately, they aren't or CrowdStrike would need to file bankruptcy at this very moment!
This makes me laugh because basic psychology and operations management can prove the Monsodian Dialectic wrong...
As a business administration graduate, I wonder if I should still use the suffix MBA in my username or not. Right now, I feel I've learned more about investing from readng Warren Edward Buffett's advice than I did from school. However, there are times I feel using the suffix MBA might be necessary, especially when arguing with people who believe in #SahodItaasPresyoIbaba economics. One article I wrote some time ago talked about how systems make a successful business. I feel a simple analysis would show the faulty argument of the Monsodian Dialectic.
Even the very definition of the word system from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary shows why the Monsodian Dialectic is dead wrong:
1
: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
a number system
: such as
a
(1)
: a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces
a gravitational system
(2)
: an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium
a thermodynamic system
b
(1)
: a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions
the digestive system
(2)
: the body considered as a functional unit
c
: a group of related natural objects or forces
a river system
d
: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose
a telephone system
a heating system
a highway system
a computer system
e
: a major division of rocks usually larger than a series and including all formed during a period or era
f
: a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice
the capitalist system
2
: an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole
the Newtonian system of mechanics
3
a
: an organized or established procedure
the touch system of typing
b
: a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing
a taxonomic system
the decimal system
4
: harmonious arrangement or pattern : ORDER
bring system out of confusion
—Ellen Glasgow
5
: an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive : ESTABLISHMENT sense 2 —usually used with the
If people insist on credentials, okay, I'll get my arguments from people with credentials. It's always necessary to have an argument from an expert if one's not an expert in that field. Since I'm no investment expert--quoting from the investment experts is what I should do. Now, we need to look at this statement from the Deming Institute to show the problem of the Monsodian Dialectic:
So what was Dr. Deming trying to convey with this quote? It wasn’t an attempt to get people to give up trying because failure was certain. It was a attempt to get people to understand the importance of the system and the futility of trying to focus on blaming people for failures.
As Deming said we are being destroyed by best efforts. Trying harder, to do what you understand as your job, when the system is broken often results in more damage. Don’t just do something, stand there (and think).
So if a bad system will be beat a good person every time what can you do? You have to focus not on trying harder within the current system but on changing the system so that success is built into the system. Relying on heroic measures is a poor way to manage.
I can't be certain what was the late Jesse Robredo's stand if we were pro-charter change or merely pro-amendment. However, Robredo here speaks the truth as he was actually an engineering graduate with a Master's in Public Administration from Harvard University and an MBA from the University of the Philippines. When we look at systems--the charter is the very system of the country. For those complaining about the comparison that Richard Gomez made, that is compare the law of a land with a car, the Philippine Constitution is the very system that runs the country.
The Monsods say that the problem is merely full implementation. However, how can you fully implement a faulty system to maximum performance if there are faults with it? For example, Article XII in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines talks about economic freedom for all. However, by continuing the faulty Filipino First Policy of the late Carlos P. Garcia, you defeat the purpose. In programming, a wrong syntax or a wrong component can cause multiple bugs. That's why today's programs have updates and fixes every now and then!
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full of efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all region s of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
We can say there's protection from unfair competition. However, going with too many restrictions isn't the way to go. Protection from unfair competition is different from protection from competition. I'd recommend that it should be stated, "The state shall protect all enterprises doing business in the Philippines from all forms of unfair competition." It would also include removing the excessive negative list--allowing foreign businesses to own up to 100% of their shares ownership. That would be the error that disallows the system from being fully implemented.
If we think about it, economist Andrew James Masigan also highlighted weaknesses in the 1987 Constitution, that prevent it from getting fully enforced:
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.
Can the 1987 Constitution really shape behavior better than any other constitution, according to the Monsodian Dialectic?
The same goes with the 1987 Constitution in looking for certain flaws. That's why the American constitution, though unchanged, has had several amendments throughout the years. Why do you think Microsoft released several versions of Windows? Can the Monsodian Dialectic account for how the system is shaping and maintaining behavior for the best? Sure, there are still rules against corrupt officials but there could be some flaws. An anti-virus software needs updates for it to track new viruses. The Constitution needs new updates every now and then. Why do you think it was even necessary to replace the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines?
How often are politicians, under the current constitution, really facing the consequences? They can go to jail in one term and get out of jail, and run again for office. To say that people must vote wisely--why should people vote wisely if the system itself is maintained and shaped by popularity voting? Right now, it's easy to use Facebook to criticize President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., do some virtue signaling, keep your Facebook account open to the public, use Twitter, etc. However, can that really shape and maintain behavior for the better, as intended? Even worse, some people still insist that the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system, even when the evidence says otherwise.
However, under a parliamentary system, Masigan also presents this case from Business World Online that would completely demolish the Monsodian Dialectic:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
If people started to vote by parties over personalities--there would be lesser political dynasties. Sure, political dynasties will exist but they wouldn't be as bad. The 1987 Constitution wants to go against political dynasties but name recalls happen. Who can remember the cycle when Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. got shot? The late Maria Corazon "Cory" S. Cojuangco-Aquino became president. When Mrs. Aquino died, Aquino III ran for president. That's why there was even a joke on Facebook that Joshua Aquino may become president someday when Aquino III dies. Aquino III died in 2021 but it may only be a matter of time before Joshua may file for candidacy, all because of his Uncle Noynoy. Every party will focus on the platforms. For example, the focus would be on PDP-Laban and the Liberal Party of the Philippines--not the candidates. That means any candidate PDP-Laban or Liberal Party has to uphold a collective platform--not individual platforms.
If you want to have better leaders, Singapore doesn't make it easy to become the next prime minister. That's a distant cry from the Philippines, where popularity weighs more than credibility. If you think about it, even this first step alone should be frightening to think about:
Step 1
In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP.
But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:
- Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
- Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
- Read business or economics as an undergraduate
- Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School
Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage.
In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.
In short, as long as popularity-based elections happen, people will hardly vote wisely. Instead, people will vote stupidly, which in turn, will cause several errors in the Philippine Constitution. It would even take 50 or more years, maybe even 100 or more (and I would no longer exist by then) before Filipinos would vote wisely.
Whether we want to admit it or not, no amount of degrees or prestigious degrees will ever change the fact that the Monsodian Dialectic is seriously flawed. I don't need a doctorate to understand its errors. All I need is common sense with some good research!