A Constitution is not a piece of paper

A congressman from the south who is against changing the Constitution may have summed up a thoughtless point of view. He said, "We may have the most beautiful constitution in the whole wide world but if the irritants that bedevil us and hinder our growth remain, then the crafting of such an excellent basic law may be for naught." The inference is that a constitution is only a piece of paper. But nothing could be farther from the truth. A Constitution is not a piece of paper. It is the framework of fundamental rules of government between leaders and citizens. It exists on paper, and what our congressman describes as beautiful also exists in reality, in the minds of men and women living as citizens within a state – affecting their livelihoods, their beliefs and aspirations, and all else that such living entail.

* * *

Much has been said about the need to educate Filipinos about constitutions. I believe the first hurdle is about coming to terms with that fundamental fact – a Constitution is not a piece of paper. Like any other contract, it is not about the agreement on paper but what the agreement on paper represents in reality. A marriage is not the marriage contract or the marriage license but the reality of two different persons making a go of life under one roof in circumstances sometimes happy, sometimes difficult and oftentimes trying. Multiply that marriage a million-fold and you have a notion of what a constitution is to a nation. The true appreciation of a constitution demands that we be ever alert to what can be done and what cannot be done, to what works and what does not work. It means looking for the best and most effective way to use the gifts and resources of the nation for the good of the greatest number in a world in constant flux and change.

* * *

Therefore, the notion of change is at the heart of every Constitution. For that reason, whether it was the Americans or the French, in general peoples cobbling constitutions that would govern their nations, include a provision for amendment at prescribed intervals. So has the Philippine Constitution. The framers of the 1987 Constitution put that interval at "at least five years from the time of ratification and once every five years thereafter."

* * *

The five-year requirement, as mandated by the Constitution could have been the subject of change by 1992 through Congress upon a vote of three fourths of all its members, a constitutional convention or people’s initiative. I will not dwell on the details of the struggle our group put up in our attempt to propose an amendment sometime before the end of the Ramos term and the unfortunate election of Erap. Let me just say once and for all that judging the motive or motives for proposing an amendment of the constitution is not the prerogative of any person or groups of persons. to decide so long as it was allowed by the Constitution. On this subject, let me just say that I will deal at length on the strange behavior of the Narvasa-led Supreme Court when it "decided" that there was no enabling law, at an appropriate time.

* * *

The spirit that governs the making or changing of constitutions in democratic societies cannot but be conducted with intense debate, therefore differences are not to be feared. On the contrary, so long as the debate is conducted according to the ground rules stipulated by the Constitution, when differences are resolved amicably they can only strengthen the body politic. This is the whole point of a plebiscite on any proposed change or amendment. There is no question that there are many pressing issues for amendment that are being debated since the current constitution was ratified in 1987. I can understand the emotional attachment of the personalities that were responsible for this constitution and why they would not want it changed. But there comes a time when emotions and authorship will just have to be bvpassed in pursuit of what is right for the country. Among these issues none has been closer to political reformists than constitutional change that would allow the country’s sytem of government to shift from presidential to parliamentary and that we finally accept that the present unitary form should give way to a federal system. of government.

* * *

The President’s support. There is a school of thought which criticizes previous governments for pushing for constitutional change, saying that these promoted their self-interests. First of all, there is no agenda that is without self-interest, there can only be a pretense at disinterest. If it is recognized that the Constitution needs to be changed and this is almost universally accepted at this point after the lessons of EDSA 1 and 2 and the disastrous Erap government in between, then it should follow that good leadership should support such an important step for the nation. I am afraid that contrary to popular belief, former President Ramos did not give enough support to the People’s initiative that might have allowed a plebiscite on a constitutional amendment. It would have allowed him time to stabilize the economy during the Asian crisis. It would also have warded off the reckless Erap presidency that was sure to follow the defeat of that initiative. Therefor the comparison between Ramos and Arroyo is misplaced. Both would not put their names, if for different reasons, in support of constitutional change and this is unfortunate.

* * *

Of course, President Arroyo is entitled to her opinion and as she rightly said, her priority is the passage of the bills for her economic program but on a another level, there is no room for disinterest or passivity in the clamor for changing the Constitution to allow the shift to a federal parliamentary government. She should consider the wisdom of what Profesor Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach said that "political democracy depends not only on economic and social conditions but also on the design of political institutions."

* * *

President Macapagal-Arroyo has the support of many for her economic program for the poor but she should be assured that the clamor for constitutional change does not run counter to that. On the contrary, her support for the proposed constitutional change of our form of government from presidential to parliamentary would strengthen her hand, remove the threat of military coups and attempts at destabilization in the guise of ‘people power’.She will not just be a good president, she will be a historic one. Although most of the groups working for constitutional change have set a time table for ten years, I think it will come sooner than that for the reason that there are amendments to be faced before elections in 2004 such as the lack of run-off elections in the face of a multiparty system..

* * *

A 172-page book on a draft constitution for the proposed amendments. I will not attempt to list down the reasons and explanation given by those advocating for the shift to a federal parliamentary government. The Kilusang Pideral Pambansa (KPP) or National Movement for a Federal Republic, has published a 172-page book entitled Towards a Federal Republic of the Philippines with a Parliamentary Government by 2010 — Draft Constitution. This is the result of a second draft that was worked on for more than three months after a first draft in November 2001. This highlights the seriousness of the academic group that has taken the job of putting their ideas about constitutional change on paper. These involved the convenors and other members of the Philippine Political Science Association; Committee on Constitutional Continuity and Change and participants from the Philippine Constitution Association, the Institute for Popular Democracy, the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, Kalayaan College and other similar institutions.

* * *

Letter from a reader. Let me end this column with a letter from one of my readers, Dexter Que, which is indicative that ordinary people, not just politicians, are following the debate on constitutional change intelligently:

* * *

Thank you for your note on the Movement for a Federal Philippines. A Federal system would be the answer to all our economic problems, it would enable us to compete with the best of the world. In effect, a Federal system would allow our country to be ‘One Country, Multiple Systems’. In order to compete with the low labor costs of China, we can designate certain provinces as no minimum wage provinces or no strike provinces. In order to compete with Hong Kong or Singapore, some provinces can be free trade or very low tariff provinces. This way, our businessmen will not need to invest in China to attain these low labor costs, nor will our citizens need to travel to HongKong or Singapore to buy cameras, perfumes, or brand name items. All our money will remain in the country. Why, we could also designate a province as a gambling province to compete with Las Vegas and Macao, this way we can also attract international gamblers to gamble here in our country and spend their money here. If international investors want low labor cost, we have it, if they want no strikes, we have it too, if they want hi tech,

we have it too. We can then become a world class supermarket for international investors.

* * *

We need not be afraid of competition as competition always brought the best out of the Filipino. When competition arrived for PLDT, we became the texting capital of the world. Competition between the shopping malls also gave us the largest shopping malls in Asia. I am sure, we can also compete in many other areas. We need not be afraid of Stanley Ho, as we have our own Chavit Singson.

* * *

We need a new revolution in thought and ideas, a new STATEHOOD movement ,that would make the individual provinces CO-EQUAL states with Manila, and not SUBSERVIENT states as they are now. We need a new KKK ( Kanya Kanyang Kaunlaran ) to make this system come true for our country. With KKK, the most elected official would be the governor of the province. Each province can define its own economic policy that is most suited to its own geography, natural resources and the needs of its people. Imagine how much easier would it be to govern a province if given the power to define your own economic policy. With a FEDERAL system, we need not care about how the central government is structured, either presidential or parliamentary, because, the power to determine our own financial and economic future will finally be in our own hands and not in the hands of a vested few.

* * *

There are those that argue that it is the people manning the machine that need changing, and we should not tinker with the machine everytime there is trouble. But answer me this, can Michael Schumacher win the F1 in a Sarao? Could Francis Drake have vanquished the Spanish Armada with bancas? Is this the type of machine you expect our president to drive in the F1 race? Will you also equip our president with bancas and expect him/her to vanquish the Spanish Armada? No. Whenever our president or governor steps up to bat, we want him or her to be on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

* * *

My e-mail address: [email protected]