The Philippine Online Chronicles

Continuation of Charter change, again: Why the constitution should be changed Part 1

Just because there are valid reasons for changing the charter does not mean that the time is ripe for charter change. In the end the reasons for maintaining the present charter are still greater.

Merits of the 1987 Constitution

One good thing about the 1987 constitution is that it has attempted to be tad more inclusive than others. With the drafting of the 1987 constitution, representation of various sectors were clearer. This isn’t to say that the drafting of the constitution attempts to be exclusive. In fact, the entire ratification process and exercises such as the plebiscite are attempts to make laws so inclusive that the they have the seal of the ‘common person’ herself. In theory, anything that comes out of congress is supposed to be a representative voice of the people precisely because our legislators are our supposed representatives. But just as Mikey Arroyo is a representative for the tricycle drivers and security guards supposedly covered by the Ang Galing Pinoy party list, constitutions have been known to be drafted by representatives who have as much in common with the people and sectors that they represent as Mikey does on blue collar work. Or if you like, as Noynoy has on governance and leadership.

With the 1987 constitution, however, a lot more sectors were represented if only because of the then recently concluded People Power revolt which effectively barred a too-obvious monopolization by the usual social and political elite as to who will be the ‘representatives’ of the people in the drafting of the constitution. In other words, it’s a little bit harder for Cory to turn down offers from legitimate sectoral representatives when she had just stumbled into presidency because of them. Her son, on the other hand, has no such indebtedness to anyone but the memory of a dead mother and the popularity of a certain celebrity sister.

Dubious motives

When it comes to the nuances of power and desire, there are many lessons to be learned from the master, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who managed to wrangle, force, and deceive her way into nine years of presidency. And one of the most important lessons is that a power-starved politician with charter change can only mean trouble. It may be too early yet to definitively determine whether Noynoy surpasses the lofty standards of greed and power-hunger that Arroyo so deftly exhibited in her almost decade of presidency, but to trust Noynoy with charter change is still tempting fate. Anyone with the gall to run for presidency even with a work record as pointless and blank as Noynoy’s clearly points to a person who has no ambition in government but to be in politics, preferably the front and center as the president. Running for public office without qualifications and skill is not motivated by a desire to serve the public but for the public to service him.

Any talk of charter change that contains amendments attempting to expand term limits or shift the structure of government into a parliamentary system where the president is able to transform himself into the all-powerful prime minister is a rewriting of the constitution for the worst. And unfortunately, these types of provisions are usually highest on the list when it comes to talks of charter change.

Already too lenient

And if it isn’t the term limits that are being challenged by charter change attempts, it’s the economic provisions. For a constitution that is already too lenient when it comes to foreign investment, attempts to make foreign investments even more prominent and accessible in the constitution is simply tedious. As is, the biggest industries and businesses in the country are already foreign-owned. The only thing left that the constitution can yield when it comes to direct investments is to allow 100 percent foreign ownership of businesses, corporations, and industries to effectively render the country mere soil for multinational corporations to plant and reap from. Even for proponents of foreign investment who have lost any belief that the country can build industries and businesses for itself, meddling with the constitution is already unnecessary since much of Philippine resources are already under foreign control and use, if not legal and technical ownership.

To say that the constitution needs more ‘economic liberalization’ is just salting the wound when the government has already abandoned most social services to private firms under the aegis of privatization. Most infrastructures in the Philippines are already built by foreigners, state universities and colleges are already underfunded to pave the way for dependence on private educational institutions with skyrocketing tuition and other fees, mineral resources in the Philippines are already farmed out to foreign mining companies, and much of the manufacturing industry in the Philippines is already by foreign companies.

Changes in paper

Above all, the greatest reason why a change in the constitution is uncalled for at the present is because any change that Noynoy’s administration brings can only be a nominal change that overwrites personal limits to his or his allies and backers’ clout, without changing the underlying theory and framework behind the constitution. Just as a change in the administration is not a change in government, a change in the constitution without a change in the underlying principles on politics, economics, and society is no change at all.

Photo by Noemi Lardizabal-Dado. Some rights reserved.