Real Talk: If the Constitution Wasn't the Problem, Why Was It EVEN NECESSARY to Write a NEW Constitution AFTER EDSA 1986?!

 

EDSA people's power should never be downplayed. It was the downfall of an illegitimate government. Both Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel had their rare interviews in Japan (read here), addressing the Marcos Years' lack of legitimacy. Doy even mentioned Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 16-year rule as lacking legitimacy. In short, the claim that the Philippines already tried having a parliamentary system at that time is false.

Ninoy highlighted the problems behind Marcos' "new constitution". In fact, it's still worth laughing at the details that reveal the crooked methods used, and why the Philippines never had a parliamentary system:

And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary form of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.

And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta (puppy) parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a French model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”

Marcos' constitution went 80 Days Around the World. It's funny and thought-provoking how Ninoy mentioned the novel. It's because we went from the supposed British type to the French type. The president here was "all-powerful". For the nth time, just because there's a prime minister, doesn't mean that it's a parliamentary form of government. Who should Filipinos listen to between Mrs. Raissa Espinosa-Robles or Lee Kuan Yew? LKY a real parliamentary statesman or Mrs. Robles, who failed to see that Cesar Virata was just an executive assistant? The answer is clear LKY knew what he was talking about when he addressed Virata as a nonstarter. Virata was no political leader. LKY was a political leader. Big difference. That means that the Marcos Regime wasn't a real parliamentary!

It wasn't enough to topple a regime. One must look at how Marcos manipulated people to create the new constitution, which was a mockery. It would be safe to say that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was both illegal and immoral. People who say that nothing is wrong with the Constitution and just the people must ask, "Why was it even necessary to write a new Constitution after EDSA 1986?" The answer is because the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was really faulty. 

Now, to think those who wish that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should be the "forever constitution of the Philippines" or treat it like sacred Scriptures, should heed these words by Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino:

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. 

Yes, there's a risk when constitutional changes happen. However, Mrs. Aquino also warned that even the wisest cures for present problems should never be imposed on succeeding generations. Of course, constitutional changes must be examined properly. Even more, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines says this:

(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.

That means the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines (or any Constitution for that matter) isn't an infallible document. It was necessary to get rid of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines to prevent another dictatorship. It was necessary to write down a new constitution. Article XVII was already placed there if ever there's a need to amend the constitution. I wonder if Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. remembered that considering he was one of the framers? Did Davide even realize that we need to update the Constitution when need be? 

Just think what if the Philippines never got rid of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines and only Marcos? It would still repeat the same tragedy. It would be implementing the same far more faulty constitution over the outdated constitution, that badly needs upgrading! EDSA 1986 should be a reason to support constitutional reform than reject it (read here).