The flawed and fragmentary 1987 Constitution

SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Art. XVI are designed to contain the fears and suspicions against the Armed Forces. The sections were embroidered with benefits to titillate the soldiers and ingratiate them to the government. The provision to recruit proportionately officers and men of the Armed Forces from all the provinces, is a badge of distrust and a fallout to the perceived notion that the members of the Armed Forces were mostly Ilocanos. (Sec. 5, par 7.)

Sections 7 and 8 Article XVI are obviously intended to seduce financially the Armed Forces. The article promises “immediate and adequate care, benefits, and other forms of assistance to veterans, surviving spouses, and orphans,” including their being beneficiaries in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain and “the utilization of natural resources,” and the “review to upgrade the provisions and other benefits.” Someone remarked “Is that not a constitutional bribery of the Armed Forces?” Do these benefits unduly discriminate against government employees?

Are they intended to soften or disarm the Armed Forces of any untoward or unholy motives? The provisions relating to the Armed Forces are the products of fears, astute politicking, gentle compromises, and measured horse trading. They were impregnated by the insecurities and fears caused by the enigmatic conduct of the army.

Under Section, Art. VII, “(t)he President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines.” This is in keeping with civilian supremacy over the military which is “at all times.” (Sec. 3, Art. II) But then, the second sentence of Sec. 3, Art II, may be viewed as authority for the AFP to defy its Commander-in-Chief in instances where it is for the protection of the people. The trouble with this provision is, who will now decide when and how the people need protection? The “how” is the more ominous part. The Armed Forces can only act and live up to its name. What percentage of the total population will be sufficient to prod the AFP to come to the aid of the people? Will this not also force the AFP to take a political stance in violation of the injunction in Sec. 4(3), Art. XVI: “The Armed Forces shall be insulated from partisan politics?

The third mode of amending the Constitution (Sec. 2 Art. XVII) is an imitation of the California Constitution. It is visionary but difficult and expensive to implement. It is appealing on paper and noble in purpose but brazenly presumptuous in operation. This is the victory of imitators.

By the same token, the provision on the Metropolitan Manila Authority (Sec. 8 Art. XVIII) is a vindication of the merits of Metropolitan Manila concept of governing initiated by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos and her action men.

The provisions on Constitutional Commissions (Article IX) will enhance their independence and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. This is a major improvement of the past. However, the article has been muddled and weakened with some provisions inappropriate or unfit to be contained in a Constitution.

Article XVII on “National Economy and Patrimony” is a classic paragon of the contriving competition between realism and idealism. It is sprinkled with illusions and dotted with unachievable lofty ideas.

Product of reason “No society,” Jefferson said, “can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.” Every Constitution has a built-in flexibility to adapt to change and correct itself through its amendatory process. Given the inherent flaws, in substance and style, of the 1987 Constitution, the sovereign people are summoned once more, borrowing Alexander Hamilton’s words, “to alter or abolish the established Constitution that is not conducive to their happiness.” It becomes imperative therefore to attend or revise the Constitution.

The choice of the modes of amending the Constitution is between the congressional mode and the conventional mode. While the latter may entail substantial expense in a time of economic crisis, it would, however, ensure the framing of a Constitution to faithfully reflect the will of the people.

But the lesson to be learned is that a Constitution should not be changed in a period of ferment when passions and prejudices are high. A Constitution, as always, should be the product of reason and sobriety. Importantly, it must be borne in mind that democracy is best served when the sovereign people themselves choose their spokesmen and agents of change. The amendatory mode through a constitutional convention is the most acceptable democratic solution.

Our people deserve a simplified but better and progressive Constitution. We need a truly responsibe Constitution for the millennium. Passivity is a recipe for mediocrity and failure. The time to act is now.