“Revising the Constitution is a political decision, it is never a question of timing.”
It appears we have not learned much from substantive exchanges we have had several times before in considering revising the Constitution.
With the revival of discussions on the subject, I am hearing the same arguments against.
I am hearing the same arguments for other options other than revising the constitution.
The same reasons are being raised by those who do not favor any amendment to the Constitution, and the same cautionary points are being raised by those who would say they support revising the Constitution, except that they favor particular changes, if not approaches to changes, or even the most oxymoron of arguments: that the timing is not right.
Let’s start with this most common of questions and or reservation, that it is not yet time, or that it is not timely to amend the Constitution, that there are so many issues that we should be concerned with and therefore prioritize.
There are also those who are more categorical and rather simplistic with their reservation of changing the constitution under the current President, being a Marcos.
Perhaps the limitation is borne out of perspective, of the work they have been doing all this time.
I have been involved in initiatives to change the Constitution since the time of former Presidents Ramos, Erap and GMA, and the reservation has always been “not at this time.”
Not during the time of Ramos, not during the time of Erap and not during the time of GMA.
Now again, here we are, hearing the same, not during the time of President Marcos.
What many do not realize is that if we will be tied with this reservation, I am afraid we will never be able to change our Constitution.
Of course, that would be preferred by some.
This will be quite unfortunate, however, as many of the issues we have been facing, especially development issues, are due largely to the kind of government that we have, to the limitations in choices of leaders, and especially to the lack of accountability in government.
These are all issues of “mechanisms” that are all defined by the kind of political system, of the processes we have in choosing our leaders.
As long as we continue with the current setup, we will be electing the same kind of leaders that some will likely not trust enough to change anything fundamental such as the constitution.
Then there are those who say that we actually have a good, even perfect constitution, that there are good provisions but have simply not been implemented as there is no legislation yet enacted to implement it.
One supposed constitutionalist argued incessantly that all that Congress would have to do is pass legislation to implement the “anti-political dynasty” provisions in the Constitution and that should address political issues, that we have been electing the same people, that our choices are limited only to political families or dynasties.
There are also those who argue that we have to enact laws to effectively implement the good “social justice” provisions in the Constitution and it will then level the playing field in the economy, labor and other related issues.
What we don’t realize or even perhaps would not want to consider is, however we raise our voices to complain the non-passage of important, game changing legislations, it will never be passed.
How many congresses have we had where proposals for an anti-political dynasty law have been just ignored?
Until such time we change the rules of elections, representation and even executive-legislative dynamics, we will never have a legislature that will pass critical legislations.
We have not been electing our leaders on the basis of what they have in mind to champion if elected, right?
Why are we expecting them to be suddenly inclined to pursue compelling legislations? I have written considerably in this regard. We’ll never get the government we deserve, for example.
The point is, revising the Constitution is a political decision, it is never a question of timing. (To be continued)
(The author is currently a faculty at the San Beda University Graduate School of Law and Executive Director of the pioneer NGO on Local Governance, the Local Government Development Foundation or LOGODEF. He was also a member of the Consultative Committee to Review the 1987 Constitution convened by former President Rodrigo Duterte that drafted the ‘Bayanihan Federal Constitution of the Philippines.’)
