A Business Graduate's Reviewing History Blog

Philippine Japanese Journal Some advocates against charter change often cite that some countries have an older constitution. One example is the USA. The other example, surprise for some, myself included, is Japan. Some may say that a new constitution isn't needed because some countries have an older constitution. However, reading through the Constitution of Japan and comparing it with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines , one can think about quality over quantity. The Philippines had changed its constitution from 1935, to 1973 (which I believe was illegal), and the 1987 version (which sprang out of a desperate need). I recommend reading both links that I just sent, to understand my point! Can a shorter vs. longer constitution be the reason? As I read both, the Constitution of Japan is  surprisingly  not-so-complicated. The Constitution of Japan would only be composed of  16 pages  (printed on short bond paper). Meanwhile, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippine...

It's often said that the Philippines doesn't need a change in the form of governance but only a change of governance. It's really something to read the comments section of the GMA-7 Facebook page , concerning Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, where some Filipinos wish that Filipino politicians had that kind of accountability. However, they're also quick to say, "No to charter change! Only character change!" I can talk about why parliamentary systems are superior. However, some still insist that it would mean going back to reliving the horrors of the Marcos Years (all because the late dictator's son Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. is now the president from 2022 to 2024). Once again, do I need to remind people why the Marcos Years weren't under a real parliamentary? Their "proof" was in having a prime minister named Cesar Virata. However, the Philippines was still presidential, even as the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. admitted it...