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...

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,...

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...

As a person fighting for constitutional reform, I looked at this video by Orion Perez Dumdum. Some people are still relying on the allegations made by a certain fat lady on Facebook. I even got blocked by a certain fat man with glasses.  I feel victorious after that fat guy blocked me. I watched this video and thought, "Are political dynasties the problem?" People fuzz over political dynasties. Some people even go as far as to blame political dynasties, not the ridiculous 60-40 equity restriction, as to why FDIs have chosen Vietnam. Yes, Communist Vietnam which is a one-party state . The "next best solution" is what? Ban political dynasties altogether. Whether we like to admit it or not, every family has bad eggs and good eggs . A good king can sire bad sons. A bad king can sire good sons. It's all about upbringing that determines the direction of one's offspring. This would also play a double stnadard. Why did people clamor the late Benigno Simeon "Noy...

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 ...

  It's time to revisit one of the favorite people for people against constitutional amendments or reforms, namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here ). Yes, the same guy who was also related by marriage to Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. Davide's school of thought is in the "uniqueness" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's the "best constitution in the world". Davide would mention that the 1987 Constitution is the only one he knows would be the best. A shame really that Davide himself, like Kishore Mahbubani, was once a United Nations representative, and he's saying such stuff.  Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines writes this in Section 1: Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Okay, I get it. However...