Has the 1987 Constitution outlived its relevance amid sweeping changes in our country in the last three decades?
In 1973 when we changed the 1935 Constitution, there were only 39 million Filipinos. In 1987—or in a span of 14 years—our population had grown to 58 million. In 2016 we have grown further to 104 million, or an increase of 46 million. So why shouldn’t we now adopt measures and implement policies and programs that
will respond to the needs and problems of 104 million people by changing the fundamental law?
A Constitution, after all, should not be cast in stone. It should be a living document that reflects changes in society. It should be amended or revised if it is no longer consistent with our requirements as a nation.
Here, it might be instructive to quote what Thomas Jefferson, the third American president and chief drafter of their Declaration of Independence, once said: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Laws and institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress of the human mind…as more discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. Each generation has the right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness.”
The 1987 Constitution is not perfect by any means.
First, it is too protectionist in the era of globalization as it restricts foreign ownership in the economy to only 40 percent. If we allow foreigners to fully own businesses in the country, then, perhaps, we can attract more investors and create more jobs for a rapidly growing labor force, the inevitable result of a rapidly growing population. Our neighbors in Asean are the ones cornering foreign investments because of our restrictive economic policy.
Second, it perpetuates political dynasties. It has this provision that the state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. But what’s wrong with this? It leaves the solution of the problem to the very people it seeks to leave out of the political landscape. The fact is that many politicians want to stay in power for as long as they can, and simply let their spouses, children or other relatives take over once their term expires. That’s the reason no antidynasty bill has been passed by Congress in nearly 30 years.
And third, the 1987 Constitution, in effect, also breeds and tolerates corruption.
How?
There’s this provision that says the state adopts a policy of full public disclosure of all government transactions involving public interest.
But wait. The framers of the 1987 Constitution again left it to the discretion of politicians in Congress to pass an enabling law that would guarantee freedom of information.
That’s another glaring flaw that those who do not want the 1987 Constitution to be revised seem to have overlooked. Would members of the legislature with something to hide vote to approve a bill that would expose their indiscretions or even illegal acts? Of course not. Wonder no more that we have been waiting in vain for the passage of the freedom of information all these years.
We need to change the Constitution because, as House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez has pointed out: “So many administrations have passed and the problem of poverty is still there. So many motherhood statements were made and this problem has not been addressed properly. Now, we believe that by shifting to a federal form of government, this would be a lasting solution to poverty.”
What wrong with our present unitary system? Again, let’s hear from Alvarez: “Right now, all the provinces and regions are controlled by the central government. Now, by shifting to a federal form of government, the regions or states can manage their own economy, manage their own natural resources, create opportunities for their people.”
In a federal setup, each state will be able to enact laws based on their own culture and traditions. They can have their own legislative body, their own justice system based on their own culture and traditions but adhere to the same Constitution and its basic principles.
President Duterte is also a staunch advocate of federalism, as he believes that the economic development of the various regions can only be accelerated if they have greater autonomy and can attract more investments from here and abroad. And to allay fears that he intends to remain in power under a federal system, here’s what Mr. Duterte said recently: “I can leave anytime, you guys vote for someone else.”
For Alvarez, the unitary system of government must go: “We have been into this for centuries, and look where we are now? Compared to our neighbors in Asia, we have been left behind. So for me, I would rather take that risk, because there’s hope there. In a unitary form of government, there’s no hope.”
Alvarez wants Filipinos to support the Duterte administration’s determined bid to change the Constitution and shift to federalism as soon as possible, preferably through a constituent assembly: “It’s very seldom that we have a leader who is determined to really change the country. Let us do it now.”
E-mail: ernhil@yahoo.com.