On Changing the 1987 Constitution

Recent calls for changing the 1987 Philippine Constitution have been making headlines in Philippine newspapers. One of the more authoritative calls have come from a former Chief Justice of the Philippines, Mr. Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

As reported in a local newspaper:

Puno called for constitutional amendments to rid the political system of “dinosaur ideas” and “save it from irrelevance.”

“I reject the argument that there is no urgency in amending the Constitution to arrest the decline of our democracy,” Puno said in an hourlong speech at the University of the Philippines College of Law, prompting nods from his listeners.

“We do not need a democracy on a stretcher. We cannot wait for our democracy to be in the ICU before calling the doctors,” he said before an audience of legal luminaries, among them justices and law professors.

There have been several notable moves to change the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In 1995 several proposals were actually fielded and studied, with notable changes in the political electoral processes and standards for election, and economically, an obliteration of the citizenship requirements in many areas (if not all) of business.

See for example this draft.

It is high time that we review the Constitution. For me, I would add several principles that would make us friendlier with other countries and yet insistent on state sovereignty. I would caution about issues on national territory especially concerning Southern Philippines. In this sense, I would wish to seek fair representation in the drafting. We don't want another constitution drafted by 48 APPOINTED individuals with 70% of not really participating in the drafting; with only a handful few who were quite capable.

And ratification-- I wonder how people would ratify a document they would barely understand the consequences of (think about how many law students can't even get through their Constitutional Law classes with ease).

One thing I would not wish to impose on the populace though, is the "divine" nature of a codified constitution. It is an enumeration of rights and a structuring of government. It is a leveling of the playing field and a proper demarcation of the public sphere.

It serves the people as time dictates.

The laws of future kings should not bind the kings of tomorrow. And in a popular sovereignty system: those kings are the people.


----
Inquirer article link here.