Politicians playing with fire on charter change

I would liken the current efforts of politicians in the House of Representatives to amend the 1987 Constitution by whatever means to playing with fire.

Undoubtedly, apart from the initial years of instability under the Cory Aquino administration as the nation recovered from the turmoil that ended a 20-year dictatorship, we have experienced a relative period of stability for the last 37 years. This stability can be credited to the 1987 Constitution, which has provided politicians and power brokers with a framework to contest for power within a constitutional structure.

I am not ruling out the possibility of amending the 1987 Constitution in the future. However, my stance is that any such amendments should be approached with caution. It's crucial that they reflect a genuine, grassroots clamor rather than being driven by the vested interests of politicians.

Current efforts to amend the constitution through “people’s initiative” have been hounded by allegations of money going around to get signatures. The House leadership has denied this but reports on the ground about money exchanging hands are persistent.

What the current efforts to amend the charter seem to show is that power is indeed intoxicating, particularly for those who gain it without much wisdom or experience, often through dynastic inheritance, wealth, or underhanded deals. Such power can cloud the judgment of its wielders, leading them toward greed, corruption, or reckless behavior.

The addictive nature of power means that those who have tasted it often crave more, frequently at the expense of their values, responsibilities, and the well-being of the community. This is why societies almost invariably go through periods of upheaval or revolutions, serving as a stark lesson to those who misuse their temporal powers.

Those who think that since people these days readily accept money for their votes, the people can also be easily manipulated with money for politicians to do as they please with our fundamental law. I say this kind of thinking is a sign of hubris --the arrogance and excessive self-confidence that comes with unchecked power. The repercussions of our legislators’ recklessness might unfold in ways they do not anticipate.

Many of our politicians believe that the people, disempowered by decades of unequal economic systems and oppressive policies, are at their beck and call, especially if incentives are dangled before them. However, history teaches us that our people have a threshold. We may be patient and docile to a fault, but under the right circumstances, we can erupt in protest, spilling into the streets, or even, God forbid, take up arms to fight against a corrupt system.

There is a reason why the 1987 Constitution has survived more than three decades without amendments. It serves as a check and balance mechanism, a thread holding together a society wracked by inequities and an exploitative culture of governance. Michael Henry Yusingco and Sophiya Navarro of the Ateneo de Manila School of Government (2019) wrote: “Initiatives to change a constitution are part and parcel of being a constitutional democracy. Resisting such an initiative, provided it is supported by a rational public consensus-building process, is also an integral component of constitutional democracy.”

Echoing the words of Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law: “A constitution thus reflects a desire to enshrine society’s core values of governance – such as the structure of government and the rights of individuals – in a document that is difficult to revise.”

This raises the question: Can the current 'people's initiative' efforts truly be considered a 'rational public consensus-building process'? Are our elections even rational nowadays, considering the flood of money and disinformation from both local and foreign sources that skews the electoral landscape? For instance, is it realistic to believe that countries like China and the United States are merely passive observers in Philippine elections?

Proponents of charter change argue that their proposal is strictly limited to amending the economic provisions of the Constitution. However, many are skeptical about politicians stopping at that point. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that they limit their amendments to these provisions, the idea of changing the Constitution to allow increased or full foreign ownership of land and other assets is highly debatable. We must be cautious; otherwise, there is a real risk that we could end up as squatters and second-rate citizens in our own country, with even more limited economic and political rights than we currently have.