The Philippine Online Chronicles

Of the many legacies that Marcos has left, the tantalizing taste of charter change is one that lasts up to now. The constitution, as the supreme embodiment of the political, social and organizational policies of the country, has always been the lush forbidden fruit for politicians in their quest for more and more power. With Noynoy Aquino, things are not much different – there have been talks about preserving the 1987 constitution in honor of Aquino’s mother, but there are also rumors that another attempt to rewrite the constitution is on the way. The question is, should the constitution be changed or not?

Ill-adapted

Most constitutions around the world are patterned after the US constitution. Almost every self-proclaimed republic has ripped off one, two, or dozens of provisions from the US constitution, some of which are just better rephrased than others. The transformation of the US constitution into something of a template is itself political – a show of just how ‘advanced’ and exemplary the US constitution supposedly is. In reality, however, the constitution is meant to be a reflection of the needs and specific traits of any particular country. Clearly, the Philippines is far from being the capitalist, industrialized country that the United States is. For a predominantly agricultural country such as the Philippines, a constitution patterned after the US model is destined to fail.

For many years, attempts to industrialize the Philippines, by which administrations mean getting more foreign investments, have failed precisely because industrialization as envisioned by the government is not what the country needs. With a population that is by and large composed of agricultural workers, the obvious solution to the economic challenges wracking the country is to develop the agricultural sector. This, however, is never what happens. Instead, administration after administration revels in each visit to another state with another news of big investments that translates to more outsourced jobs that may pay better than agricultural work, but only because of the consistent disregard for the agricultural sector which effectively ensures that local jobs in local industries remain uncompetitive.

Good intentions, bad implementation

It has been said that hell is paved with good intentions. The present constitution is paved with good intentions, even if only nominally. Compared to past constitutions, the present constitution is filled with plenty of provisions specifying nitty-gritty details such as provisions on women, youth, social reform, human rights, and attempts to address and redress the social divide between rich and poor. All this points out to the fact that even for the drafters of the constitutions, the country’s afflictions are clear. The point where good intentions starts turning into paving blocks for hell is when the provisions are rendered toothless and inutile, however.

There are, for instance, provisions on the prioritization of education when it comes to budgeting. Up to now, however, the government including the judiciary interprets this provision with a leniency which allows for exorbitant budget allotments for debt-servicing and military spending. It isn’t that a constitution focused on education, or any other social issue for that matter, is needed. It’s that the constitution needs to be interpreted or implemented correctly with the spirit and intent of the law. Instead, schools turn education into a business. Administrations and even the Supreme Court itself have turned the supposed prioritization of education into mere wordplay riddled with loop holes (within the text itself, or in interpretation) that allow for the continuous privatization of education and reduction of budget for state colleges and universities. And this goes not only for education, but for a host of other issues in the constitution such as provisions on women, agricultural and rural development, and the need to solve the divide between rich and poor.

In other words, the deliberate unimplementable nature of the most necessary provisions on the constitution is at face value a good reason to change the constitution into that has such clarity that there can be no pandering on the side of the judiciary when it comes to interpretation and no possibility for politicians to use their clout and legal expertise to mold the primary law of the land into their will. At the core, however, is the need to change not the constitution but the politics that give birth to the constitution.

Changing times, changing constitution

The constitution was never meant to be immortal. Even the US constitution has gone through various amendments. At present, the US constitution has 27 ratified amendments. Precisely because the constitution is meant to be reflective of the changing needs of both the country and the people, there is no reason why a constitution should be set in stone. This, though, is not the best of reasons to change the present constitution in the Philippines. It isn’t that the constitution was once tailored and catered to the details and nuances of Philippine society. It’s that it never really was.

Misguided provisions

Finally, certain provisions of the constitution are simply misguided. Provisions, for example, on foreign investments as a vital part of Philippine economy are the biggest threat to economic independence in the country. Such focus on external economies and foreign investments is what continues to render the country dependent on remittances and OFWs to keep the economy afloat. The issue is not whether the OFWs are the ‘bayani’ that they are consistently portrayed as. It’s that the people who remain in the country should have the capacity to be heroes in their own rights as well. If a Filipino domestic help in Italy, or a nurse in London, or a blue collar laborer in the middle east can be a ‘bayani,’ why can’t the same ‘katulong,’ nurse, and ‘manggagawa’ have the same status in the Philippines? Clearly the greatest distinction between work within the Philippines and without is the difference in pay. This difference in pay continues as long as the administration does not focus on creating an independent economy that can stand on its own.

Continuation -  Charter change, again: why the constitution shouldn’t be changed (Part 2)

Photo: “Barasoain” by , c/o Flickr. Some Rights Reserved