The September 21 Luneta Park Protests will DO LITTLE TO NONE to Really Solve Corruption (Under the "Sacred" 1987 Philippine Constitution)

Angat Buhay

September 21 can always fill the mind with some thoughts. For Filipinos, it's the commemoration of when the late strongman, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., declared martial law, seemingly out of a whim. Martial law is still legal in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, provided that it has been studied accordingly by the legislature, whether or not it can be approved. For example, former president Rodrigo R. Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao when the Mautes attacked. Now, the rally against corruption in itself isn't inherently wrong. People need to do some peaceful protests, and it doesn't seem that the people were engaging in degrading behavior. Sometimes, we need to have a peaceful protest to be able to make a difference, as was what the late Martin Luther King Jr. did, to secure black rights, and how female rights activists fought to secure equal rights for men and women, such as Susan B. Anthony.

Now, we need to think about how one must look at the issue of corruption in the government. People tend to blame corrupt officials alone, without realizing that the bigger problem is within the system. It's gets annoying when I realize that I can talk about corruption all I want, but some of these people (not all) tend to act like the 1987 Philippine Constitution is a "sacred document", then they give sources to defend their claims like Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr., Atty. Christian Monsod, and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (for Filipino Catholic faithful), which makes me give them a blank stare at their lack of practicality. In the process, they commit the fallacy of cherry picking with or without knowing it!

For example, Facebook pages like Silent No More PH, The Rule of Law Sentinel, La Verite, and We Are Millennials are all good examples of that. I will not focus too much on all their individual fallacies. Instead, I would like to look into their argument that tends to support Davide's views. Davide has often been viewed as defending claims like:

1. The 1987 Constitution is the only constitution that is a public trust! (Read the refuttal here). 
2. The 1987 Constitution, despite not being perfect, is the best in the world! (Really laughable given with the results). 
   
3. The 1987 Constitution isn't the problem; it's just the people! (Ignores the relationships between people and systems)!

The very idea of trying to fight corruption (the symptom) under the outdated system is like this. Some countries may not replace the constitution all the time, but they have a more flexible pattern that can be done through legislation. One of the major problems in the Philippines is that it focuses on what's called the obsession with short-term solutions. Relying too much on rallies and protests is an overuse of a useful tool, to the point it becomes a blunt knife. A knife is a good tool but overuse can make it blunt. Sooner or later, you will need to discard that knife!

Whether we want to admit it or not, an abundance of corrupt officials are a result of  corruption (or errors) within the system

Sure, the 1987 Constitution has rules against corruption. It doesn't blatantly write that govenrment officials can steal or should steal. However, there are still major problems with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines operates under a presidential system. Before people can bring up the myth of the Marcos parliament--they really need to look into the specifics of how a real parliamentary system works and not just dismiss the argument prematurely!

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, running under a presidential system, makes it difficult to hold its president and the government, accountable. What are the reasons why despite the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines' warnings against corruption, that corruption prevails? It's because the accountability mechanism in itself, is a corruption. A corruption within a computer program can destroy the overall flow, or even cause frequent crashes. The same goes for any errors within the "sacred" 1987 Constitution. After all, that's what Article XVII is there for, to give amendments for the future times!

Unlike the parliamentary system, the presidential system doesn't have these features in a parliamentary system:

1. Having a well-defined government facing off against a well-defined opposition. It's because it's all about party-based politics.The Philippines doesn't have that! If the Philippines had that, the Liberal Party today would be able to scrutinize the Government led by Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr.! 
2. Having weekly questioning between the government and the opposition. Those who were complaining about former health secretary Francisco Duque should ask themnselves, "How often was he called to answer for his performance?" 
3. Weekly televised debates would either make (1) develop a sense of accountability, or (2) refusing to apply thinner on one's face can get one out. A parliamentary system isn't so that even the Devil will become good. Rather, it's all about making sure bad officials will barely enter and they lose their influence, no matter how much they will still have it! Bad politicians will become a black market in a competency-based system! 
   

As we look into it, those attending the September 21 protests need to ask themselves, "Are my rallies enough? Shouldn't we also protest for constititional reform, to make what we want, even more possible?"