Someone is said to be amoral when his thoughts and pursuant actions are already immune to the imperative of good and the prohibition evil, when he looks at right and wrong as one and the same thing. Something on the other hand is considered amoral when it has no moral dimension, no ethical content. In this sense, the fundamental law of the land is definitely not amoral. It categorically has moral considerations, ethical insights.
The salient provisions of the Philippine Constitution on the unborn, on the substance of marriage, on the nature of human rights, have eminent moral contents.
The signal contents of the Philippine charter on national sovereignty and territorial integrity, on the promotion of the common welfare of the Filipino and the affirmation of the right to national self-determination, have inherent ethical connotation.
The great import of native land ownership and management, of local trade and industry, among other constitutional provisions, are certainly not devoid of socio-moral implications or ethico-national consequences.
Those who claim that the voice of the church is irrelevant to the proposed charter change are much misled, to say the least. The last thing that the church in the Philippines will do is to speak on issues that are in the realm of purely partisan politics, on matters that have no bearing on the rise or fall of the Filipinos, that are beyond the moral order or the ethical sphere categorically commissioned by her founder to preach the good news. The church in the Philippines may not remain silent when confronted by bad news for her constituent lay faithful and for voiceless Filipinos.
It would be extremely hard for those who want to silence the church on the matter of the eagerly pursued charter change, to claim instead that theirs is the moral authority, the ethical prerogative to judge on their own intentions and purposes. This is very suspect. This is very self serving.
5 September 1999