Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Only Constitution That Institutionalizes, "Public Office is a Public Trust"?

 

It's time to revisit one of the favorite people for people against constitutional amendments or reforms, namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here). Yes, the same guy who was also related by marriage to Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. Davide's school of thought is in the "uniqueness" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's the "best constitution in the world". Davide would mention that the 1987 Constitution is the only one he knows would be the best. A shame really that Davide himself, like Kishore Mahbubani, was once a United Nations representative, and he's saying such stuff. 

Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines writes this in Section 1:

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Okay, I get it. However, the problem is in the claim that only the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has it. With the incident where outgoing Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida--I was urged to read into the Constitution of Japan, which is older than the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Here's the preamble of the Constitution of Japan, which came even before the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which went into effect on May 3, 1947:

We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith.

Although stated differently, the Constitution of Japan still institutionalizes the doctrine that public office is a public trust. It states this differently by focusing on the government as the sacred trust of the Japanese people. People who still quote Davide on Facebook need to look at the constitutions of other countries. 

A person born way before Davide was, already said something similar, and it's Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a framer of the American Constitution, which has been amended 27 times! In Executive Order 12674, we can also read this part proving Davide wrong again: 

Public service is a public trust, requiring you to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.

From the Accountability Round Table, David Solomon also emphasizes that the public office is a public trust. Once again, one should credit Jefferson than Davide for that thought! This is something Solomon wrote about the public office as a public trust:

This heading encapsulates two concepts used by judges and commentators to describe the obligations and duties of those elected or appointed to public office – that is, members of parliament, officials and others who discharge public duties. The first – public office as a public trust – is favoured by some judges who take the word ‘trust’ in its strictly legal sense, involving fiduciary obligations under equitable doctrines. Former Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French has referred to the ‘public trust metaphor’, saying the notion of public office as a public trust is an old one, ‘borrowed … from the principles of equity which define the duties of trustees’.[1] The second – public office is a public trust – uses ‘public trust’ as a special kind of trust, involving obligations not necessarily the same as those that arise with private trusts. This is not to say that the ‘public trust’ is not a legal concept: as will be shown below, it is the basis on which successful criminal prosecutions have been brought against some politicians in recent years, most notably, the former NSW Minister, Eddie Obeid.

I'll share some thoughts from the Public Service Division of Singapore. I bet Mahbubani would probably facepalm if he knew Davide said such stuff. Here's a quote that Singapore also believes that the public office is a public trust which was written last 2013, before Davide said it in 2018:

The Government emphasises very strongly the integrity of the Public Service and the public’s trust in public officers. We expect public officers to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. The Government is thus concerned about the recent spate of cases involving public officers. Although the statistics do not show an uptrend, we are concerned that these cases should not undermine public confidence, or convey the impression that standards have slackened over time. This is why we are prosecuting the cases vigorously.

It would show that several opponents of constitutional reform in the Philippines, tend to have very limited sources. Is it trying to keep up with having a Pinoy Pride Constitution or what? Are they using Davide like some all-knowing and all-powerful source? Why are they so limited to Davide and the Monsod couple? It's easy to shoot me down and say, "Shut up! You're not a constitutionalist." We're already in the digital age or the information age. Today, you can either subscribe for information or get whatever free information is available. I ordered From Third World to First on Shopee last 2022. Why are these people still stuck on quoting Davide et al on social media? 

To further shoot Davide's arguments against amending the 1987 Constitution, Jefferson also said: 

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another…

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturaly expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

We've seen people live and die. If I'm going to count the number of dead ex-presidents from Emilio Aguinaldo up to when I was in high school, not so many. Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos were still alive when I was in school. Now, both Mrs. Aquino and Ramos have joined the list of dead former presidents. Benigno Simeno C. Aquino Jr. died in 2021. Times change and as Jefferson wrote, there can be no perpetual constitution. That's why the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times! What about the 1987 Constitution? It wasn't even meant to be the "forever constitution". That's why Article XVII exists! 

As Davide is saying things, his dying relevance isn't because of his age. Instead, it's because Davide refuses to make adjustments when necessary (read here). In Tagalog, I'd say it is, "Tumatanda pero walang pinagtandaan." In short, it's growing old but never learning anything!