On Charter Change

ON CHARTER CHANGE

Webster defines “change” as “A substitution of one thing in the place of another.” When we do substitute one thing with another, we do it for the better. It is natural to think that the new one should do better than the outmoded. Put this mind, “change for the better.”

The charter, of course, refers to the Constitution; the Constitution defines our type of government. So technically, changing the charter means changing the government. Connect it with my premise (first paragraph); we change the government only for the better- that’s my point.

The 1987 Constitution is the fourth fundamental law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July 4, 1946. The first was the Commonwealth Consitution, adopted in 1935; second was the Constitution of 1973, enforced during martial law; then the freedom Constitution of Aquino and finally the present 1987 Constitution[1]. Refreshing on history, the first revision (from the first Constitution to the Second) of our Constitution was purely a tyrannical act- the change was an abuse of power. The second change (from 1973 Constitution to the freedom constitution) was a necessity to usher in the new 1987 Constitution which was adopted to cure the defects of the prior constitution and ultimately rid off dictatorship in the future. What I’m stressing out here is that the previous changes of our constitution were either due to great NECESSITY or if not through ABUSE of POWER. In analogy to our present scenario, if the prior does not exist, we are sure that the latter is the reason for the charter change.

Presently, we’re in great crisis- that’s what politicians say; then add up, we need to change the constitution to address these problems. My reaction is, Philippines is always in crisis. Crisis is inevitable in a state; no matter what type of government therein. Presidential or Parliamentary, Federal or unitary … Each has its own share of advantages and disadvantages. What’s important is that when we opt to change our government it should be because of a REAL necessity. There should be some great political upheaval wherein cha-cha is the last resort. Only on that fateful time when changing the government would be for the better; only on that day will I say “I’m supporting charter change”.


[1] Source: Constitutional Law by Isagani Cruz, p 19