The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"
I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines. Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections, while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science!
It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? Check. Keep them in debt? Check. That's the methodology that certain dictators used to keep themselves in power. Mao Zedong managed to stay in office longer than Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. for that reason. Mao kept people poor. Even worse, Mao built his own villa while China starved! One can Google about Kim Jong Un's estates while the rest of North Korea starve. It's an effective way to keep people too tired and too occupied to even think of overthrowing the despot!
Does the owner of Butthurt Philippines that making satires is enough to keep politicians in accountability? Whether we want to admit it or not--systems shape behavior! It's easy to talk about system change and vote wisely. However, one can dance and rap "Vote wisely! Vote wisely! This election vote wisely!" but what can you do in a popularity-based election?
Someone even wrote on the Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page something as stupid as this:
Can this person truly prove that systems don't reform people? The last I read From Third World to First--the late Lee Kuan Yew didn't have to wait for Singaporeans to straighten up! No, LKY already imposed several rules, which in turn, reformed Singaporeans from being pasaways (Tagalog term for an unruly person) into law-abiding citizens. This guy, Alibata, needs to buy a copy of From Third World to First and focus on Chapter 13 called "Greening Singapore". Does this guy have the guts to prove his claims to the National University of Singapore? The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) founded by Kishore Mahbubani would just laugh at him, or even have him caned, if applicable.
Education helps reform people, but it's not a panacea. Everyone can get a college degree but there are rules to follow. As my example goes, a smoking ban will help minimize smoking. Some people still break the law. However, if there's a smoking ban in certain areas, you can enforce it. Does Alibata here expect people not to smoke if there were no smoking ban? If there was no smoking ban, no amount of school education will help. It's because without a smoking ban--people may soon start to smoke as early as Grade 1. How can a teacher be effective in punishing children who start smoking if there was no smoking ban in schools? Will Alibata here would open a gasoline station and not put a smoking ban? Would you deliver gasoline without a warning sign you're carrying something flammable? I wonder what is Alibata thinking here? Alibata might as well expect his gasoline station to go sky high, because he didn't put the necessary smoking ban!
Does Alibata here, if ever, can prove that systems couldn't change people. Can Alibata by all means, really prove to any school of psychology what he said? If Alibata could produce that study, successfully defend it, I will believe him. However, Alibata's statements can be easily disproved even without acquiring a PhD. Can Alibata prove it to the Deming Institute? Maybe, Alibata will say that Deming's study is already old. It's not the age of the study but its continued validity. Given Alibata's logic, would he reject the Pythagoream Theorem or Newtonian Physics, because they're centuries old? We still use ancient knowledge daily. We simply let that ancient knowledge grow. We produce a better system by learning from the old while trying something new. The problem with Alibata's thinking is that he's probably arguing based on what conveniences him.
I gave the proposals and they laughed at it. The usual rebuttal is, "It's not with the 1987 Constitution, it's with the politicians!" Oh please, that's the same old argument. The results say otherwise. Why are more Filipinos going abroad than working at home? Why is that even a deluded demigod from Davao is now running for senator? Why is it that Robin Padilla, an actor, won? Sure, I can support Padilla's call for constitutional reform but I refuse to back him up 100%. Those who complained that Padilla won need to reexamine the presidential system! If there was nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution then are these people willing to use an operating system from 1987? When will they get the analogy that the Constitution of a country, is the country's operating system?
The UCL defines a constitution as:
A constitution is the rule book for a state. It sets out the fundamental principles by which the state is governed. It describes the main institutions of the state, and defines the relationship between these institutions (for example, between the executive, legislature and judiciary). It places limits on the exercise of power, and sets out the rights and duties of citizens.
In short, like an operating system tells the computer what to do--the constitution tells government officials and people what to do and what not to do. The constitution contains the fundamental principles. If that's not the very system of the country--I wonder what it would be? I would be interested in any academic study outside the Philippines, to prove it? If they ever have "such a study", they might've gotten it from the Trust Me Bro School of Politics and have a MARITES in Political Science! The same goes for why corruption is hard to combat. How do you expect to have an antivirus from 1987 to work against viruses this 2025? Don't insist on not updating your PC, then complain why the security is so weak.
The big mistakes of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines are highlighted from Philippine Star, as follows:
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.
Once again, just because the person is for constitutional reform, doesn't make them a Dutertard or Marcostard (read here)! Take note that Andrew J. Masigan is a Duterte critic. I'm grateful for some people on the yellow side, that are seeing the need for constitutional reform! Masigan even highlights that our current presidential system failed in checks and balances. True, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines isn't pro-corrupt. However, it's got a defective check and balance. That's why I even asked that nutjob political science professor asking, "Since how many times did Dr. Francisco Duque get summoned to give his report." Talk to him about the parliamentary system, he only throws insults and insists that it only worked in Malaysia and Singapore, because Mahathir Mohamad and LKY aren't corrupt. If he's really a political science professor--he should do a thorough review and find out the Philippines was never under a parliamentary system!
I mentioned how an obsolete OS couldn't fight the latest security threats. One needs to take a look at why antivirus programs keep getting important updates. These updates even require the PC to be reset. If you don't update your antivirus then you can expect to be hit by more viruses than usual. Just think of the person who refuses to upgrade one's equipment and OS. The person couldn't expect the antivirus from 1987 to still work. Let's say the people who made the effective antivirus from 1987, refused to upgrade and their company went bankrupt. However, this person is still so attached to the antivirus from 1987 because "It was what I was used to." Can you imagine if I decided to go for Abode's utterly expensive subscription model because I used Adobe back in college? I would probably be broke as a joke now, because I only use photo editing for fun! I switched to Affinity Photo because it's a one-shot purchase! I would pay around PHP 1,000+ for one transaction (but I'm willing to pay a bit to get an animation function) over the ridiculous package Abode Photoshop has! I have to let go of Adobe despite me using it back then. If there's something more effective then there's no room for sentimentalism. Why would a person get stuck to Windows something from decades ago?
These people need to see that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, was meant to be open-ended. In short, it's something that should even be ready to be put in the museum, along with every old constitutions of the Philippines! The current situation is pretty much like using an old antivirus to combat the most recent computer viruses. It would be like rejecting surgery because the doctor refuses to use outdated techniques in the past. That's why I said, "All you do is complain but you reject the solutions!"