I am always for Constitutional Change. I prefer the parliamentary form of government to presidential form. I believe that governance will be better and elections will be cheaper if we change the present form of government. I believe that we will be better if we elect political parties rather than personalities and if we will decentralize power rather than concentrate it in the hands of the few who sit in imperial Manila.
The Constitution is the most controversial document. Some see the Constitution as a document which can be appealed to when the status quo is challenged. Others consider it as a piece of paper which can be rolled up or torn down to pieces when the expediency of personal, class or political interests demands. This much abused but seldom read instrument fuels feuds among politicians.
Most of us, lawyers, consider the Constitution as a living document. It embodies the aspirations and frustrations of the people who long for democracy and a better future. It represents the past and projects the future of our people. Without the Constitution, life will be cheap and dispensable at the whims of the power that wrests control over the greater force in the society. This is the importance of the Constitution.
The 1987 Constitution is a product of urgent necessity. It was intended to establish the needed social order and break up the institutional chain which the 1973 Constitution imposed upon the country. As an institutional framework, the 1987 Constitution expresses the sovereign will to: “build a just and humane society and establish a government that embodies a government that embodies our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, love, equality and peace. "
More than what these fine words convey, the Filipino people are hoping that the Constitution will bring about the birth of a society that cares equally for all. However, the present Constitution also insulates the status quo from widespread and meaningful change that the country needs. These past years have confirmed how the liberal-democratic framework of the Constitution legitimizes the irrational and growing disparity between the poor majority and the privileged few.
To check this irrational disparity, we need a strong State with a developmental orientation. The Constitution must recognize the need for the State to consolidate its power in promoting the interest of the people and the society. This must be seen in the substance as well as in the letters of the Constitution. Designed as a check to the powers of the three major branches of the government, the present Constitution divides the government into two kingdoms, the Executive and the Legislative Branches, under the watchful eye of a great arbiter, the Supreme Court. Each branch claims supremacy in their respective fields. However, the endless accusations and counter-accusations of abuse and misuse of State power between the Executive and Legislative Branches disclose how jealous they are with one another. Rather than fostering stability and interdependence, the present government structure breeds paralysis and gridlock.
Efforts at changing the Constitution are getting nowhere. Vested interests have blocked the necessary reforms to start the transformation of the Philippine society. Politicians advocating changes in the charter and those that are blocking them have been successful in confusing themselves about the significance of the Constitution. Debates, disguised as a question of propriety, center actually on personalities and personal aggrandizement. Politicians advocating changes in the structure of government claim that the change in the charter is necessary to uplift the poor. On the other hand, those who opposed the move to change it, postulate that what we need now is a mere change of leadership. Too sad, all these charades are empty sloganeering in the name of the majority whose voices remain unheard since the founding of the Philippine Republic.
It cannot be denied though that there are urgent reasons for amending the Charter.
Unfortunately, no matter how urgent these reasons are, you cannot simply rush everything and expect a better Charter at the same time. We need time to choose people who can be trusted to draft our Basic document. With due respect, the present members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are not fit for the job. Effecting fundamental changes to the Constitution will need the services of people who are more trustworthy and qualified to sit in a Constitutional Convention.
