MANILA, Philippines — A framer of the 1987 Constitution sounded a rallying cry over the weekend to protect the Charter from attempts to rewrite its provisions, saying that the fundamental law codified the hard-fought liberation that Filipinos won during the 1986 People Power revolt.
In the face of moves in Congress to liberalize economic provisions in the Charter, lawyer Christian Monsod reminded Filipinos of the historical movement that led to the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship – an event that inspired constitutional framers to weave in strong provisions against an excess of power and major foreign intervention.
Related Stories
"EDSA was the inspiration of the 1987 Constitution, which was the first time that we spoke to the world as a truly independent and democratic Filipino nation. It is a document that had not been imposed on us by any colonial power or by a dictatorship," Monsod said at an event held by the Movement Against Disinformation at the University of the Philippines Law Center on February 25 to commemorate the 37th anniversary of People Power.
Among the ideas behind the major amendments in the 1987 Constitution was the resolve for Filipinos' "national destiny" to "firmly and safely rest on Filipinos themselves" by limiting the extent to which foreign countries can affect the economy, he said.
"Never again [to] amendments similar to the 1935 Constitution that gave Americans equal rights to our patrimony, and economic policies where even our exchange rate after independence could not be changed without the approval of the United States (which) resulted in the foreign exchange crisis of the early fifties," Monsod added.
Monsod also said that those who crafted the 1987 Charter also intentionally placed a premium on both social and economic rights, as well as civil and political rights "because we are a country of inequalities from the colonial days to the present where the starting positions of the rich and the poor are not equal."
This is because social justice with the poor was "the heart" of the 1987 Charter, such that even its article on the economy included social justice provisions, according to Monsod.
"Hence, a new Article on Social Justice (was introduced) to address not only mass poverty but also the gross social, economic and political inequalities that is rooted in a feudalistic system of dynastic families that has been impervious to change for generations, (and) the corruption that goes with it," he said.
Monsod said that Filipinos must oppose the current attempts to amend the Charter, which have pivoted to focus on economic provisions removing restrictions on foreign ownership.
"We cannot allow this charter change to prosper. Based on their proposals, we will likely get a Constitution that waters down the social justice provisions, gives preference to business rather than welfare ends, gives authoritarian powers to the Executive, aligns the Bill of Rights with the Anti-Terrorism law. And five-year terms for all elective officials, including the President and VP, with one re-election for another five years,” Monsod said.
"On the amendments to the economic provisions with the insertion of the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ in (six) areas of investment, it just opens the door wider to transactional legislation at which corrupt politicians and greedy business are most adept," Monsod added.
RELATED: Robin can dance Cha-cha on his own but Senate to focus on Marcos' priority bills
Focus on removing political dynasties, not Charter change
Monsod said that while the 1987 Constitution was crafted to prevent a dictatorship, the reality is that the political landscape is ruled by political dynasties that continue to gain power.
"EDSA was not only about the restoration of democracy, it was also the promise of a new social order that remains unfulfilled through every administration since EDSA. And those of us who had our turn in government have an accountability to the poor for that failure," Monsod said.
He said that, after People Power and the 1992 presidential elections, "we folded our banners, we put away the t-shirts with the imaginative slogans that brought humor to the seriousness of the times, and went back to our personal purposes and advocacies."
He added: “And as we went our separate ways with our separate causes, we lost something of the dream of a nation and the significance of our interconnected lives.”
Monsod said that the problem is not necessarily the Constitution, but the extent to which government followed the spirit of the fundamental law, “especially its provisions on social justice and local autonomy.”
He said the party-list system must also be improved to better reflect the anti-dynasty character of the Charter, which he said can be done specifically through the passage of an anti-dynasty provision in the law, removing the maximum of three representatives per party and "removing the loophole of 'track record of advocacy' which enabled a Forbes Park resident to represent tricycle drivers."
Monsod also took a jab at the House bill calling for a constitutional convention for its seeming facade of allowing voters to select the delegates of an independent body.
"They know that since the delegates will come from the congressional districts the profile of the delegates will be exactly the same as the present Congress that is dominated by political dynasties," Monsod said.
READ: Padilla: Presidential endorsement not a factor in push for charter change
A check against authoritarianism
Filipinos they spoke to in crafting the 1987 Charter also had an overwhelming desire to directly elect their president, Monsod said, and most preferred "the stability of familiar structures" – such as a democratic representative, a presidential system with checks and balances and separation of powers.
Today, however, Monsod said that those who seek to move away from the "slippery slope of authoritarianism" onto "real change (that) we seek" should first agree on where they believe the country should go.
"Because unless we agree on the ends — which is a new social order — then our means will not be the same. And if we agree on the ends, are we willing to pay the price for it, especially if it is against our self-interest?” Monsod said.