Reflecting on Ninoy Aquino's Words as I Feel ALONE in Promoting Constitutional Reform

As I insist on the need for constitutional reform, I already feel like I'm alone. It's not because I'm in jail (otherwise, I would not be able to type this), but because most of my life, most Filipinos have become the collective tyranny. In fact, one can say, "Are we a democracy or are we an anarchy?" The more I think about the surveys by Pulse Asia, they claim that 88% of Filipinos (but have they truly surveyed everywhere) are supposedly against charter change. This is where the tyranny of the majority kicks in. People may have overthrown the tyranny of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., but they haven't learned much. Instead, people insist on false myths such as the Marcos Parliamentary Years (which, by the way, is bogus to the core, read why here). As Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. said, "We had a parliamentary system, without a parliament." 

I felt alone many times when I wanted to change the Philippines. When I went to Singapore for a short vacation, I saw tthat he progress was much better. I saw an island-nation that had progressed. I saw a highly developed area with, well-disciplined population. I saw the signs everywhere. However, when I went back to Cebu, it was back to reality. I was wondering, "Will my country ever meet this?" I would talk about Singapore's progress was due to discipline. I had no idea how economics ran. I was still taught with the foolishness of Filipino First Policy. I was taught Carlos P. Garcia's policies made the Philippines better. It turns out that the claims of the late Alejandro Lichauco, were bogus. Did the Philippines truly become a tiger economy during Garcia's time? If so, why did Garcia lose against Diosdado Macapagal, father of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?

Unfortunately, the Philippines is somehow ruled by a new kind of tyranny that they're not even aware of

One can call it a subtle tyranny. This new tyranny is the tyranny of the majority. What has happened to what democracy is supposed to mean? Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not a government that's of the majority, by the majority, and for the majority. The people also include the minority. People think that as long as majority wins--it's already a democracy. Please, that has never been the real definition of a democracy. In a democracy, both the opinions of the majority and minority must be considered. Unfortunately, with the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the presidential system might end up eroding the Bill of Rights in the process!

Back when I was in college and into my early 20s, I was frustrated with how people didn't know how to vote wisely. Unfortunately, one pasaway (meaning stubborn person) ended up saying he's tired of the majority wins thing. More often than not, the majority is wrong. The majority isn't always wrong but it can usually be wrong, depending on the system. How many times have Filipinos refused to vote wisely? That was my frustration. I even remember how parliamentary systems are often demonized. I even remember a TV ad that said parliamentary systems are scary. Scary for what reason? Because a president or prime minister will rule for more than six years? Have the makers of that ad even seen the progress of Malaysia and Singapore? Did they even consider Pol Pot only ruled Cambodia for four years, but his reign was anything but benevolent? 

One of the craziest things that people do is say, "If you don't agree with the majority, then (insert insult)." It's a common tactic to insult people, especially if they're in the minority. It's because people tend to like following the crowd, regardless if the crowd is right or wrong. It's also the same reason why so many people lose a lot in the stock market. Instead of using wise decision making, they follow the crowd. Instead of investing in stocks through an index fund or buying the best stocks, investing for the long run, many prefer to do either day trading (which the late Charle Munger called a speculative orgy) or panic sell. A lot of people would rather invest in Get Rich Quick schemes than legitimate schemes. Jeff Bezos of Amazon even called Buffett's investing to be "basic that anyone can do it". Buffett replied that people would refuse it, because most people don't want to get rich slow. It's the truth that most people want to get rich quick. Just because most people want to get rich quick fast, doesn't mean that it's right!

By saying no to Constitutional reform, I'm afraid Filipinos have lost their voice to say no to tyranny

The same might be said about people opposing charter change. One of their excuses is that it was used by Marcos. Never mind that in Marcos' case, it was an illegitimate regime, to begin with. Ninoy even lambasted how Marcos used illegitimate tactics to get a constitution that was unstable to be passed. In the end, Marcos made a constitution that was easy for him to amend. Imagine that Marcos could dissolve the Parliament (but it was a presidential government) but parliamentary couldn't dissolve him. If anything, it's because of the perception. If nothing was wrong with the Constitution at that time, why was the 1987 Constitution even made? Why was it necessary to make a new Constitution? Unfortunately, after the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has been left so outdated, it has the potential to create short-term tyrannies. True, there is the still the Bill of Rights--which may end up becoming toilet paper sooner or later, given the presidential system's way of governing things.

Who has the potential to become a tyrant, or are becoming tyrants, or have become tyrants? My answer is suchpeople who are against updating an outdated constitution. For example, Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said something like this:

When we voted at the final voting of the draft of the Constitution on 12 of October 1986, I embedded my affirmative vote with these words, modesty aside: into this Constitution I have given my blood, tears and sweat. This is the Constitution I’m willing to die for.

In doing so, Davide has ended up becoming a tyrant, without knowing it. Davide can claim to fight for democracy. But what is democracy with an outdated constitution? Right now, I remember Ninoy's struggle when he spoke against the mockery of the "Marcos Parliament", revealing how weak the claims are. Ninoy and Salvador "Doy" Laurel Jr. (who died in 2004) challenged Marcos' legitimacy. Marcos had never been formally put in as president or prime minister. There were no meaningful elections. Today, one can say there are hardly any meaningful elections. Maybe, one can also include Atty. Christian Monsod, Solita Collas-Monsod, former CBCP president Archbishop Socrates Villegas (and ironically, he belongs to a multinational religion), or any anti-reformer for that matter. Some boomers rely on past achievements. Every time I write about the need for constitutional reform, I feel outnumbered either because (1) these are people old enough to be my parents, or (2) because the Philippines is prone to crowd mentality.

Some people are still carried over by their Pinoy Pride. When I talk about the need of FDIs to flow in, I can always expect the typical answers. One could keep talking about loss of sovereignty, how the country will become obsessed with the Filipino First Policy. If the school taught it, it must be right, right? Even worse, the late Lee Kuan Yew even stated in From Third World to First said these words about the Philippine press:

Ramos knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges.

In short, the new tyranny that I feel many Filipinos are afraid to speak against is the rambunctious press. If (insert TV station) says it, if (insert news organization) says it, it must be infallible, right? It's like they adore (insert TV station) without a critical mind. Why are they so good at quoting LKY against the Marcoses but ignore the rest of his helpful advice? This could've been helpful advice in not just fixing the damages caused by the Marcoses. It could've been helpful advice in preventing another Marcos! Instead, they would only quote LKY about the Marcoses. There may still be a good amount of Flor Contemplacion crybabies that have been spreading fake news, since 1995-present (read here).

Did they even know the words that Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino even spoke these words?

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. 

This is how modern tyranny is taking place. A minority or even one person can criticize the system, and the people take it personally. They will continue to insist, "Nothing is wrong with the system, it's only the people." It's because that's what we've been continuously taught in school for years! Right now, I even wonder if my bad grades in elementary to high school, or my irritating habit of complaing about how difficult high school was, are justified? In fact, I would play video games excessively as a form of escapism. I was often told, "If you want to make the Philippines a better country, why don't you study hard in school?" Okay, I started to take a different path in college. However, I still find people who refuse to study hard. I often shouted, "Do you ever wonder why the Philippines never progresses?" When I did something unreasonable like throwing someone's cellphone when they're texting during group meetings, I would often shout, "You should be thankful I do this! Without it, this nation will never progress!" I often get answers like, "I don't care about that as long as I'm always happy!" They identify themselves with the system. They probably identify with the outdated 1987 Constitution of the Philippines!

Losing their voice to the tyranny of economic protectionism when they choose the Filipino First Policy

This is also the fear of speaking against the tyranny of the oligarchy and the tyranny of the Filipino First Policy. It's stupid how Filipinos tend to hate the oligarchy but love the Filipino First Policy. Unfortunately, Fact Check Philippines is downright dead wrong in saying that the 1987 Constitution doesn't protect the oligarchs. Let me remind you that no fact checker is infallible. How can the Facebook page even explain the 60-40 rule? Who in their right mind would want to invest in the Philippines if they had to find a Filipino partner, who they must give up 60% of their net income after taxes to? I'm not going to dismiss what Fact Check Philippines gets right. Unfortunately, it's dead wrong about the 1987 Constitution not protecting the oligarchs!

Philippine Star

The 60-40 rule may not prohibit investors, but it still discourages investment from entering (read here).  As I mentioned earlier, no MNC in their right mind will invest in the Philippines with that kind of scheme. Thankfully, former president Rodrigo R. Duterte signed the long overdue 2022 Public Services Act. Instead of being grateful, some economic neanderthals like the League of Filipino Students called it an act of imperialism. Either the people at LFS know they're lying (and they have an agenda) or they simply don't know what they're talking about. The results aren't pretty. The real tyranny happens is that many Filipinos are forced to work abroad. Conquering the world, these fools say? Sadly, when you get the job, you don't conquer the country. When you get a job in (insert country)--you aren't there to conquer that country. You are there to follow the rules of that country. That nurse Ello Ed Mundsel Bello aka Edz Ello learned it the hard way, after he was deported from Singapore. 

Back at home, Filipinos are stuck with low wages and expensive, mediocre services. It's common sense really. Can you expect Filipinos to get super good Internet with just two to three telecommunication companies? The Philippines is an archipelago. The same goes for everything. It's ruled by supply and demand. No amount of "democracy" will alter the laws of supply and demand. How can you expect Filipinos to have higher wages when there's too little demand for labor (read here)? Can they even force local businessmen to generate employment for more Filipinos? Can you expect all Filipinos to provide jobs for Filipinos? It's the tyranny of Pinoy Pride, that creates the tyranny of economic protectionism. Even worse, some people who embrace this tyranny state that economics is "magic". I'm getting tired of seeing crowds of people who still protest for #SahodItaasPresyoIbaba ,meaning "Raise the wages, lower down the prices." That's simply bad accounting and bad economics. No amount of majority votes will ever alter the truth of any absolute laws!  

But can I truly have that indomitable spirit?

I can never say that I will not falter. Ninoy had been in jail for some time. I believe Ninoy was framed during the martial law years. I heard of encounters in which the innocent were punished with the guilty. Ninoy was just one man at that time. Ninoy probably faced that in his hopelessness, he thought he was alone. However, there was the slogan that said, "Ninoy, hindi ka nagiisa!" or "Ninoy, you aren't alone!" There are times I feel alone, but am I really alone? Right now, I have no army because I have no money to raise an army. I'm not even paid to write this post, as some might think! 

Many times, I feel that the Filipino isn't worth dying for. Ninoy said that the Filipino was worth dying for. However, I felt like the Filipino wasn't worth dying for, based on a series of unfortunate events. I even felt like giving up and going to either America or Canada when I was in college. I felt like the Philippines was a hopeless basket case of anarchy. That's why there's the term democrazy--it's when democracy is just an illusion and people live by the tyranny of the majority. In this case, it may be best to say, "There are still a few Filipinos worth dying for, because if the Philippines were eradicated, what will happen to a few Filipinos still worth dying for?" It would mean that these few few Filipinos are still a threat to the tyranny of the majority. 

Right now, I remember being told, "Why don't you just follow Ninoy's example?" That's why I dug through some of his speeches and found out that the Marcos Years never had a true parliamentary system. That's why I dug out and found out that Ninoy had his fears, too. Right now, some people are still debating whether Ninoy can be considered a hero. Was Ninoy merely tagged along with the guilty? But one thing is certain: Ninoy dared to speak against what needed to be spoken against. If I continue to shut up because of the tyranny of the majority, then who will speak?