hould we amend the Constitution? Definitely yes.

Should President
Aquino get an extended term? Definitely no. Not because he doesnt
deserve it. Not because the country needs a continuance of his
policies. Not because of any justification. He shouldnt get it for one
simple, immutable reason: Change in the Constitution is so important,
so fundamental to the nation, that any change must be done with cold
reason, dispassion, uninvolvement. No one involved in the change
should personally benefit as that will color their decision. It must be
prospective only, applying to those in the future.
You dont change a Constitution to suit a particular moment, you do it
to set the foundation of a society. If the Constitution is changed to give
this leader a longer term, then the next leader will get it tooand he or
she may be a bad leader you cant get rid of for now even longer.
A Constitution is the lifeblood of a nation, you dont play around with it
to suit a political moment.
ADVERTISEMENT
In fact, any change should probably be done through an elected
constitutional convention if true independence of decision is to be
achieved (although knowing how things work in this country, electing
truly independent representatives would be a major task in itself). The
1987 Constitution was a reactionary constitution developed in reaction
to the excesses of the Marcos regime, and at a time when redeveloping
a national identity overrode a need for balance. Consequently it ended
up far too detailed when general policy and ideology are what a
Constitution calls for. The confidence and recent success of the country
have highlighted some of the weaknesses this has led to.
Everyone but everyone that matters recognizes the reality of the
global world today and that opening up the economy to a wholly level
playing field can only benefit the people. China remains politically
tightly controlled, but it went from poverty to wealth by opening its
borders (and its economic sectors) to all who wanted to do business.
As to the political, Ive long argued a parliamentary system may well
suit the Philippine culture better, in what, I venture, would be a more

democratic system. No feudal lord to dictate (an elected president is

that in his unchallengeable term) but a first amongst equals chosen by
those equals and as easily removed by those equals. And probably a
federal system, given the uniqueness of so many of the societies in the
Philippines and the archipelagic nature of the country. But wed need
better trained local officials, more honest too. What the local
government of Cotabato did to a $6 billion investment, and what
Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada did to business and the national economy
give one reason to question the wisdom of a federal system.
Sadly it looks as though this subject was inadvertently brought to the
public by a president who thinks and says his mind, as we all do, but in
a front of a media always looking for the next headline. I dont think he
was seriously considering constitutional change as a new policy
direction but just a thought to consider.
Unfortunately the exposure the media gave to it means he may be
even more reluctant to go along with the call by so many to amend the
economic, and economic only, provisions of the constitution. The one
president who could effect that much-needed change. Again a reason
why a presidencyat least Philippine-styleis not a good one. One
man can override the wishes of thousands more involved than him in a
subject. Over 85 percent of businessmen we surveyed want the
economy fully opened up by constitutional change. Whats frightening
though is that according to a Pulse Asia survey, more than half (61
percent) of Filipinos have not heard, read or watched anything about
the resolution filed by Speaker Belmonte that would amend the
economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Worse, of the 39 percent
aware of the resolution, a huge 36 percent was undecided.
The results of these surveys tell the President the bosses he says he
represents are behind him if he supports the amendment of the
economic provisions the Speaker has suggested. So his reluctance to
support Belmontes resolution despite growing calls from the business
groups and ordinary citizens could further affect his (declining)
popularity and his political capital, for effecting needed reform in the
remainder of his term.

Congress sees the wisdom of bringing in greater levels of investment

and integrating the Philippines more into the worlds economy. As it
now stands, the constitutional restrictions will make it difficult for the
country to be part of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement.
The Speakers solution is not what Id want, and what should really be
done, which is to properly bring the Constitution into the modern world.
And to have it state general policy, not specific directives, as a
constitution should. But doing that would be a Sisyphean task with
little chance of success. Belmontes solution is simple: Just add the
words unless otherwise provided by law. Then whether we should
really change them can be argued openly in the halls of Congress. One
by one. The Left can have their day, and if they can convince their
brethren they can maintain restrictions but at least each item could be
argued as to its relevance today.
I see no fear of the discussion in Congress being hijacked into political
change. Senate President Drilon and House Speaker Belmonte control
enough majority and have made it clear they wont have any part of it.
The President needs to join them, and us.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/77890/should-we-amend-theconstitution#ixzz45mKRZCWA

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
AMMEND
All constitutions provide for
amendments because of the
realization that the need will
arise.
The United States Constitution
has been amended 27 times. It
was ratified in 1787. Less than
two years later, ten
amendments were introduced in
order to clarify the Bill of Rights.

DO NOT AMMEND
After only four years of the P-Noy
presidency, the World Bank president
during the World Economic Forum has
declared the Philippines as the next
Economic Miracle of Asia and even
the world. The countrys growth
remains to be the second fastest in
Asia, next only to China. The
economic environment today is very
different from the conditions during

the time the 1987 Constitution was

No work of man is perfect. It is
drafted.
inevitable that, in the course of
time, the imperfections of a
written constitution will become
apparent. Moreover, passage of
time will bring changes in
society which a constitution
must accommodate if it is to
remain suitable for the
nation...Time and changes in the
conditions and constitution of
society may require occasional
and corresponding
modifications...
When the 1987 Constitution was
ratified, the Philippines had just
emerged from a Marcos regime
that had economically
plundered the country aside
from persecuting all forms of
dissent. The Philippines was the
second wealthiest country, next
only to Japan, at the beginning
of the beginning of the 21- year
economically destructive Marcos
rule. At the end of this regime,
the Philippines was the sick
man of Asia.
Difference of ammendment, revision and ratification