Do you agree that Philippines should amend or revise the 1987 Constitution?

Confucius, China’s most famous teacher, philosopher and political theorist in 551-479 BC quotes that “It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change.” Hence, “the only thing that is constant is change”.

The change of the Constitution may not be the wisest option to spur progress, a treadmill to the nation seeking to liberate itself from the shackles of obsolete rules no longer conformable to the country’s needs and aspiration, yet resistance from it would be the stupidest thing one can do to his country.

However, some Filipinos viewed instinctively that changing of the Philippine Constitution is a threat or a predicament rather than a challenge to be embraced. Undeniably, laymen and antagonists presumed, that its necessity is dictated merely from the whims, caprices, passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities and purposely to suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation thus, heedlessly precluding without thorough evaluation of its beneficiality and practicability and whether or not if favors only to selected members of the society and deliberately its effects to the nation as a whole.

Noticeably, the 1987 Constitution had been in effect for 20 years and no amendments or changes had been introduced to improve it. Therefore, it is just about time to amend or revise the charter. Though, it’s true that the people’s traumatic experience of Martial Law and the fear of Marcos’ ghost casting doubts on the proposal to change the constitution, yet this can be eradicated if and only if the Filipino people will be educated on the pros and cons of every proposed amendment or provision. To ensure further the authenticity of the intention of the change, there should be fair, honest and objective information dissemination. On the other hand, amendments and revision of the charter should be done in a most appropriate manner which is in accordance with Art. XV11 of the 1987 Constitution.

Scrutinizing the strengths and the weaknesses of each proposal shall be useful in defeating the evils of the said proposal while promoting the good side of it. Let’s take into account, the most controversial shift from bicameral – presidential form of government to unicameral – parliamentary form of government. One of its advantages is the decentralization of power of which the local government units shall be given the powers to ensure efficient delivery of basic services. However, some feared that if this will have happen, there will be a possibility of the rebirth of private armies since those politicians has the tendency to stay in power by all means. (This was experienced before in some regions.)

By properly laying down its advantages we can more likely aimed to impede its disadvantages through implementing prohibiting laws or statutes or strengthening existing statutes to prevent the occurrence of such weaknesses. Since, we are being pre-empted on the possible outcome, then we can probably formulate solutions to it. Oftentimes, we stare our problem for too long lest we forget to think of the solutions