I WILL just touch the economic provisions.”
I don’t know why these words remind me of date rape. Must be the many teen movies I’ve seen over the years, or steamy romance novels I read when reading material was still of the printed kind.
But date rape begins in almost the same way: just one kiss. Just one drink. Just a stop because I’m too tired or too drunk or the drive is too far. And before you know it…
‘… no charter is immune from review simply because a Charter, or Constitution, or a Basic Law, is always a child of the circumstances in which it was born.’
But this is not to say that I am not in favor of reviewing our 1987 Constitution. Far from it. Anyone who insists we cannot and must not review the Charter written and passed amidst the strong post-EDSA Revolution anti-Marcos emotions is mistaken. No charter is immune from review simply because a Charter, Constitution, or Basic Law, is always a child of the circumstances in which it was born. And circumstances change. So Charters cannot be immune to amendments. Or even to be rewritten.
The US Constitution is an example of a charter that has been “rewritten” as many times as an amendment has been passed. And if some of the issues bedeviling US society these days become even hotter, then there may be more amendments down the road. Maybe one enshrining one man, one vote and abolishing the Electoral College. Maybe another on a woman’s right to decide matters regarding her body (as is happening in France). Down the road may be one concerning union between individuals of the same gender.
Our 1987 Constitution cannot be any different. From the economic provisions to even the matter of nuclear power, the Constitution that was written by 50 hand-picked men and women and adopted by a popular vote of the Filipinos in 1987 can – and should – be subjected to serious review.
But the way that review is to be done may end up like date rape if we are not careful.
Here’s my proposal: a Constitutional Convention should be constituted. The delegates are to be elected per district. I am opposed to the idea of having both Houses of Congress convening as a Constituent assembly for this purpose. It will be too controversial in a partisan way, and reviewing and rewriting a Constitution must be spared as much partisan controversy as possible.
Furthermore, the potential authors of the 2025 Philippine Constitution must be subject to an important prohibition: no delegate to the Constitutional Convention can become a candidate for public office in the election immediately following the adoption of the Constitution. This will remove the suspicion that authors will write a Constitution to their “liking” since they will seek public office under it once the Filipino people embrace it as their new charter.
Only in this way will Charter Change not become date rape.
