This Latin phrase which means “Where are you going?” aptly describes the state we are in today. Are we in a state of impasse because of slow response or inaction on our expectations? I hope not, and that we must not stop striving till we reach our goal. Let me share my own thoughts based on my experiences while facing a major crisis in our nation’s history.

I am fortunate to have been involved in two initiatives toward drawing a blueprint for national development in the country.

The first is the 1987 Constitution where I was one of the 47 members of the body and chaired the article on General Provisions. It was here where we were forced to envision priorities and strategies that had guided legislation in our country for the past 39 years. I had to refer to it again following the recent crisis over the flood control mess which again brought up the need to implement new laws, among them an acceptable anti-dynasty law, a party-list system, and freedom of information.

As we know, the constitutional provisions of accountability and transparency in governance, among others, provided guidance in restructuring critical systems in budgeting and brought to light the inadequacy of our current systems in keeping track of critical processes such as monitoring implementation of large-scale projects, malpractices and unlawful expenditures.

Now, we are again at a crossroad. The question on amending or merely implementing new laws as remedies have surfaced. While many including myself would disagree with Senator Lacson who recently stated that the Constitution has failed to serve national interest, we may have to think twice whether we need to amend the Constitution or shift to a parliamentary form of government and the like.

A reality that came out when I went through another review was that we had not truly taken advantage of the full strength of our Charter over past charters and over other Constitutions of the world. I am referring to the heart of the Constitution which is “social Justice.”

As former Supreme Court justice Reynato Puno pointed out, ours is not merely social justice in form like that of other countries, but one of “substance.” He meant that when we talk of social justice, it is not merely providing each man equal access and opportunity but in addition, providing him equal opportunity at the starting line. It means that there is considerable inequality in our society and therefore a boy from the hinterlands would find it difficult to compete with one from a family with adequate means at the starting line. This unique state provides our country a positive image of real democracy at work and could help us move forward.

Another area that could be re-examined is the priority we have given to our land resources. Despite being an archipelago, we have a Department of Agriculture but only a Bureau of Fisheries and thus, have given the former more resources. Today, we are still even in conflict over ownership of our own waters in the West Philippine Sea.

We are aware of our deficiencies but after the recent unpleasant mess, we shall perhaps be more motivated to turn these negatives just as long as we arrive at a consensus on where we ought to go and are confident support by the majority.

The other opportunity although limited, is having been a part of earlier initiatives on multi-sectoral consultations. This was 37 years ago when six of us, social scientists in economics, culture and communication, political science, public administration, and development studies, went around the country to gather what we described as “visions from below.”

We held focus group discussions with local government and nongovernment sectors, organized panel discussions on varied development issues with colleagues in the academe, government and business sectors. The need to focus on “the common good,” revitalization of indigenous cultural practices, creating spaces for greater participation of marginalized sectors, and decision-making based on an inclusive human development framework The two years of consultation yielded a comprehensive report, “The Philippines at the Crossroads: Some Visions for the Nation.”

Some of us who have had similar experiences could share their learnings on future directions. The difference between then and now is that while we need to act now, the outcome we desire can happen only within a time frame of two decades. Many are aware of the desired changes in the Constitution, laws to be amended and a radical restructuring of existing governance policies and practices.

It is now a matter of how we are able to sustain needed action so that we can reach our goal without getting sidetracked. It is identifying how each of us and each sector to which we belong can organize into a collective.

It means evaluating our current resources – advances in technology like artificial intelligence, and motivated human resources that can help us find the way towards 2045, at the rate of socio-political technological change, we are not able to imagine what to expect.

But we trust that the insights we have gathered over the years would help us navigate our way forward. ([email protected])