THE VIEW FROM RIZAL

Recently,  we have often been asked where we stand on the issue of Charter change. The spate of queries appears to have been sparked by the escalating debate on whether or not changes should be made to the 1987 Constitution, a debate that is said to be dividing the public and fomenting animosities. 

We have made it clear to the curious that we do not have a position on this matter, at least for the moment.

What we have right now is an appreciation – an appreciation for how healthy our democracy is, and for the fact that we share in the belief that ours is a nation governed by laws. 
As such, the actions and decisions made by our leaders need to find bases for these laws. If some actions and decisions need to be taken and they are not allowed under the present constitution, then the parties concerned have every right to ask for amendments or revisions – a right protected under the very Constitution they want to change.

There may be groups pushing for changes in the 1987 Constitution because they know that, because this is the highest law of the land, no policy can be adopted and implemented if it runs counter to the Constitution.

On the other hand, some groups are vehemently opposing the effort to amend the Constitution because they know that if the efforts for such changes succeed, there may be adverse consequences to the stability of the political system in our country. That sense of stability is important if we are to attract new and more investors.

We have also been asked if we are bothered by the “noise” that seems to have accompanied the bid to introduce changes to the present Constitution.
Our answer is that we have accepted the fact that “democracy is noisy.” 

After all, the essence of democracy is the presence of an atmosphere and environment that allows for free and unshackled debate. 

There are observations that the debate on a prospective Charter change has sometimes degenerated into name-calling and personal attacks. While we prefer a debate that is sober and relatively bereft of ad hominem, we recognize that, for the Filipino, the issue of changes or amendments to the basic law of the land is “personal.”  This involves more than just politics or the economy. It puts in peril the Filipino’s interests: the future, his family, and the foundations that have kept our society together.
Our position on the issue of Charter change is that we must allow for healthy, lively, unfettered discussions. 

Such discussions educate us and help us realize even more the sanctity of the principle that we are a nation governed by laws and not by men. 

Moreover, such healthy and lively discussions help us understand what the current aspirations of our countrymen are. Listening to the debates, we become more attuned to what Filipinos want and need, and how our political system can help them attain such aspirations. This way, we appreciate more deeply the fact that a country’s Constitution is exactly that – the embodiment of what the people of a country are aspiring for.

The debates inspired us to take a look back into the preambles of the Constitutions that had been framed in the course of our history: the Malolos Constitution of 1899, the 1935 Constitution drafted during the Commonwealth period, the 1973 Constitution framed during the early years of Martial Law, and the post-EDSA Revolution Constitution of 1987.
While the language of the writers of the highest law of the land tends to be unemotional and direct to the point, one would sense from the text of the preambles the passion and intensity of the aspirations of our countrymen during those specific periods in our history.

At the beginning of the 1899 Constitution, our forefathers wrote, “The Philippine Republic is free and independent,” a direct statement of what mattered most to Filipinos at that time. The very first part of the 1935 Constitution declared that “the defense of the State is the prime duty of the government,” and that “in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service.” It added, “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy.” Perhaps, the framers at that time could already sense the winds of the Second World War. 

The 1973 Constitution gave a special place to the role of local governments in the declaration of principles. Its framers wrote: “The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities.” Meanwhile, the 1987 Constitution unequivocally declared that “the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”

Those excerpts, perhaps, express the most important aspirations of our people during the period in which our Constitutions were written. 

If ever changes are to be made to the present Constitution, such changes should reflect only what truly matters most to our countrymen today. That is why it is important that the ongoing debates must proceed soberly. We will all have to think rationally when we decide whether or not such changes are truly needed and if such changes should happen today. ([email protected])