Atty. Mel Sta. Maria By Atty. Mel Sta. Maria February 2, 2018, is the 31st anniversary of the 1987 Constitution. Nothing is fundamentally wrong about it.

Its overhaul must be anchored on urgent reasons, just like the case of the 1973 Constitution. No doubt, the latter provided the autocratic infrastructure that caused the country’s legal, political, and economic bankruptcy in 1986. Ferdinand Marcos became a dictator executing the laws. Amendment Numbers 5 and 6 also allowed him to legislate, making the Batasan Pambansa a farce. Marcos’ exclusive power to select magistrates made judicial independence illusory.

Despotically, the 1973 Constitution empowered Marcos to arrest people sans probable cause determined by a court. Even without actual rebellion and invasion, he could declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus indefinitely jailing anyone without charge. Finally, Marcos was provided constitutional immunity even after his term making him unaccountable to the Filipino people.

The result was the grossly unrestrained larceny of the treasury. The PCGG was established for “the recovery of ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad” (Executive Order No. 1, 1986). At least R170 billion of ill-gotten wealth has been recovered.

The 2013 Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act also recognized the “summary executions, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross human rights violations” committed with impunity by the Marcos regime.

The 1987 Constitution changed all that. From a despotic rule, power-dispersal and check-and-balance among the executive, legislative, and judiciary became the government’s framework. Social justice, public accountability, human rights, respect for life, gender equality and sensitivity, protection and integrity of national territory, resources economy are its hallmarks.

And now, some people want the 1987 Constitution changed. But is there any pressing urgency for it, as in the overhaul of the 1973 Constitution?

There is none. The current Cha-Cha, as it is called, is an advocacy not grounded upon a fundamental necessity. There is no showing that all the country’s problems are traceable to the 1987 Constitution.

Evidently, the noises do not come from cause-oriented groups, economic associations, the academe, civil society, OFWs, and other significant sectors like the youth, the unemployed, the urban and rural poor. They mainly emanate from some politicians who, often, have selfish agenda. And, frequently in the Philippines, their adherence to an issue is based on who is in power and not because of any worthy advocacy.

For example, is the change to a federal government really timely? Does it assure liberation of the marginalized, equitable distribution of wealth, and unification of the country. Will it allow double taxation? Will it ban political dynasties or, on the contrary, encourage autonomous states to be “kingdoms” of political families? Can improvement just be made by creative legislation and administrative actions? If the problem is how the financial gains should trickle down to the poor, surely, the solution is a matter of perspective and policy, not the changing of the Constitution.

Likewise, public accountability is evident under the 1987 Constitution. We witnessed the fate of former Presidents Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Benigno Aquino III. After their terms, cases (meritorious or otherwise) were filed against them. Do we want to change that too?

And on martial law, President Duterte expressed his desire to make its declaration less difficult. Is this not dangerous? And considering his preference for a longer-than-three-year-term for local officials, is this their real motivation to side with cha-cha?

President Duterte’s allies argue that Cha-Cha must be pursued because the presidency was won based, among others, on this platform. Going along with that simplistic view, it is equally arguable that, because of the same platform, he became a minority president. Obtaining only 39 percent of the votes signified that 61 percent of the electorate were against his cha-cha.

Recently, President Duterte created a Consultative Committee to study the Constitution’s overhaul. But in any event, the threshold question will always be Cha-Cha’s propriety. Tinkering with the Constitution based on non-fundamental motivations is a transgression of the sovereign will.

Ultimately, the problem may lie not upon the 1987 Constitution but on government officials misapplying it — Cha-Cha being the red herring distracting the citizens from the mismanagement of the government.

(Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law and law professor at the Ateneo de Manila School of Law, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law, and the University of Asia and the Pacific School of Law and Governance.)