Defending the 1987 Constitution Like a Broken Record

I've observed several anti-constitutional reform pages on Facebook. Whether it'd be Change Scamming, Silent No More PH, Mahal Ko Ang Pilipinas, La Verite (and Pinocchio ironically represents this page), Rule of Law Sentinel, We Are Millenials, etc.--the argument tends to quote the framers (or the Catholic Bishops' Conference in the Philippines) more than anything. Most of them tend to echo the same idea, echo the same sources, etc. In fact, one foolish old man I met said he wouldn't believe anything about the constitution if it's not from Filipino constitutionalists.

In short, I'm dealing with a group of broken records. Why do I say that they're broken records? It's always repeating the same ideas over and over again. It may not be the same words over and over again. However, one can look at the idiomatic meaning of broken record, as a person who keeps repeating the same ideas or statements, over and over again, without offering anything new. In fact, that's how the framers, such as Atty. Christian Monsod (mockingly called XTian Monsod by a few) and Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here), as well as their defenders, sound like. The same goes for several members of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines.

In logic, we have the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Sometimes, we may defend what is true while engaging in circular reasoning. In the case of the 1987 Constitution defenders, one could look at the circular reasoning as absurd as the meme I made above. I used Socrates Villegas (former CBCP president) as Argument A and Argument B is by the 1987 Constitution framers. Villegas says, "Ask the framers!" then the framers say, "Ask the CBCP!"

To answer it, circular reasoning means:

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

For example, one uses the book, to defend the book, than looks for other sources that could help defend the validity of the book. Of course, the book with good information, remainds valid, whether or not circular argument is used. However, without any evidence (other than just statements), there's really no use in defending the truth or debunking an error. In the case of the CBCP and the 1987 Constitution framers, it's become a broken record. CBCP cites the 1987 framers and vice versa. CBCP may also cite the faulty DepEd textbooks then the teacher says, "Don't ask me, ask the framers!" Then the student asks the framers and it goes back to the CBCP.

Here's also another screenshot of some guy who calls himself Logie Kinko. However, this comment really makes me ask, "Does he know how systems work?" This individual may be part of the boomer generation, as indicated by his profile photo. I would really laugh at how this guy even calls himself Logic Kinko in the woke world of Twitter. However, based on logic, the guy doesn't understand how systems work. The problem isn't being a boomer, but being a stubborn one.

When asked for proof, it can even be crazier. I remember running into someone I dub as Sayad (Crazy) GY (Get Your) Herenggilya (Injection). Whenever I asked for proof of his arguments, it went like this. The highest school of thought for that guy is, "If you don't trust me, you must be such an (insert derogatory name)." That person defending the 1987 Constitution would choose to repeatedly hurl insults, if the person doesn't believe him. The same went for a political scientist (probably retired) who I dub Professor Camote. Professor Camote would rather call me stupid than provide evidence that the Marcos Years were supposedly under a parliamentary regime. Instead of arguing the argument, Professor Camote would prefer to call me stupid repeatedly. The same may be true for others like Jover Laurio, Gerry Cacanindin, and Logie Kinko.

When I think about this one, it's all but a broken record. A broken record is best thrown away. In a literal sense, nobody in their right mind will enjoy listening to music from a broken record. The song will never be able to play completely. It will just keep getting stuck in that part. The same goes for people who defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines--they're really broken records.

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already tarnished image in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the unjust British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos." I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...

A Business Graduate's Reviewing History Blog

Search This Blog