Manuel (Lolong) M. Lazaro By Manuel (Lolong) M. Lazaro Chairman, Philconsa (Part III) Partial and confused There are 97 provisions of the Constitution qualified by the phrase “as may be provided by law” or “as Congress may provide.” The modifying clauses render lifeless and insentient provisions of the Constitution. Without enabling laws, the 97 provisions, at best, are declarations of good intentions. The qualifying clauses to the 97 provisions of the Constitution are a built-in chain of legislature usurpations of the organic law. In the end, what prevail will be the enactments of Congress and not those of the framers of the Constitution. The Constitution may be modified, amended or expanded continually by statutes promulgated by the sheer numerical force of the members of Congress. This lamentable situation cannot be obviated. It is in grafted into the Constitution. Parenthetically, at least ten laws need to be enacted by Congress to activate the dormant provisions of the Constitution. Unless and until enabling laws are enacted by Congress to implement the 97 qualified provisions of the Constitution, the 1987 Constitution is, in all respects, partial and incomplete. Ingersoll once said, “Give the Church a place in the Constitution, let her touch once more the sword of power, and the priceless fruit of all the ages will turn to ashes.” The principle that the separation of church and state is inviolable (Sec. 6, Art. II) assumes farcical proportions. Some provisions conveniently eschew the principle. Sec. 12, Art. II, on the sanctity of family life, was fashioned in tour de force to force acceptance of the Catholic doctrines that marriage is indissoluble and that abortion is a cardinal sin. With Section 12, Article II, divorce and abortion for any reason, whether legally right or morally correct, may be unconstitutional. This is a signal triumph of the Catholic Church. The Constitution should have opened instead discretionary judgment to meet the demands created by new tunes and new institutions. It is the un-monumental monument of the clergy in skirting the principle of separation of Church and State. The Church succeeded in imposing its teachings via the Constitution. The Preamble, Sec. 12 of Article II, and Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV are the greatest achievements of the Church. This is heightened by Church influences sprinkled in various provisions (e.g. the word “love” in the Preamble and Art. XV). The 1987 Constitution can easily pass as an appendage of the Bible. Bill of Rights The improved and expanded Bill of Rights, Article III, is the greatest achievement of the 1987 Constitution. It clarified and settled the “inconstancy,” “penumbras or shadows” of some jurisprudential rules that faced the bench and the bar during the Marcos era. But this achievement is asphyxiated by the dubious concept, extent, and application of the “sequestration” and “freeze” orders and other odd/uncommon conduct of the past leaderships. Another district achievement is the embodiment of the Filipino First Policy, the product of Philippine nationalism. (Sec. 10, Art. XII). It articulates the grant of preferred rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony to qualified Filipinos, notwithstanding the growing demands of globalization and liberation of commerce and trade. This is an indigenous provision that stands out. This is a signal achievement of the 1987 Constitution. Section 26, Article XVIII of the Transitory Provisions “constitutionalizing” or legitimizing the issuance of “sequestration and freeze orders” derogate or subvert the concept of the Bill of Rights. It “sequestered and froze” the essence and purpose of the Bill of Rights. The “sequestration and freeze order” provisions cleverly inserted in the Article on Transitory Provisions make the Bill of Rights like the ruined Parthenon or one of the Gothic masterpieces which the storms of passionate strife have beaten. They deride the sincerity of the government and render the Bill of Rights illusory. The “sequestration and freeze orders,” to appropriate the words of George Anastaplo, is a “constitutional comedia.” The provisions on Human Rights and Sec. 23 of Article XVIII on the legitimization and continuation of “sequestration and freeze” orders are constitutional reminders that the siren of hatred and vengeance keeps on wailing even long after the death of President Marcos. The last sentence of Sec. 6, Article II, providing that “Neither shall the right to travel be impaired” is a formal recognition of a natural right. This is a triumph of the people who suffered in the hold-departure list. It must be noted, however, that the right to travel, with the concomitant right to a passport, is a natural right and need not be mentioned in the Constitution (Schactman vs. Dulles, 1955, 96 App. O.C., 225 F 2nd 938). The Constitution is not the source of this right. President’s powers Article VII (Executive Department) was designed and formulated to prevent another Marcos. Obviously, the framers were too engrossed and consumed with the events of the past that they strangled the presidency of the needed flexibility. They stripped the president of the powers required in grave emergencies. The drafters were not motivated by principles but of the personalities and of the politics involved. The legislative and judicial encroachment of the delicate executive functions and responsibilities has immobilized and rendered ineffective and inefficient an honest-to-goodness president whose only ambition might be to serve and lead the people well. The provisions are anchored on the mistaken proposition that all the presidents will think, govern, and act like Marcos. The words of wisdom by Lincoln are timely: “It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.” (Licolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, History, 1776-78 Vol. 9 at 380). The creation of the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordillera (Sec. 15, Art X) is the triumph of the Muslims and the defeat of the Christians despite the fact that the latter constitute the majority in Mindanao. This is a tribute to the Muslims and an indictment of the Christians. Section 15, Article X, is also the victory of the renegade ex-priest It obliquely proclaims him as hero and father of the Cordilleras and its government. The killings of soldiers and civilians by the followers of the ex-priest are effectually rewarded and condoned by the Constitution with the creation of an autonomous region in the Cordilleras. This provision makes the ex-priest the uncrowned Chieftain of the Cordilleras. The provisions of Article XVI on General Provisions may be divided into two: the triumphs or victories of vested interests or groups, and the tools to achieve the short-term goals or solve momentarily the problems of the government. (To be continued on Tuesday)