“The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social service, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and improved quality of life for all.” (Phil. Const: State Policies, Section 9)
If someone reading the above fantastic and impressive declaration did not know that it is but one of the many inspiring and moving State Policies written in the Constitution of the Philippines, he or she might be readily led to think that said constitutional provision were something formulated and meant for another Country, i.e., for any other Nation except the Philippines! Those who really know and actually live in the Philippines would find the above cited State Policy rather strange if not downright ridiculous.
It is a given reality that a State is represented by a government, and this in turn is categorically committed to work for the good and welfare of the State by enhancing its natural indult and by actualizing its professed finalities.
For the record, the Philippines as a State, has been under the command of the incumbent government for no less than some long eight years. And for the record too, the same long ruling government has very successfully brought the Philippines—the people and the land—from pretty good to downright worse, from a plus socio-economic rating to a big minus societal and even moral grade to the exasperation, anger and even desperation of the citizens.
Hence, specifically for the Philippines in relation to its long standing government: Does working for “just and dynamic social order” ensure prosperity?”
There must be a trick somewhere, somehow. This is because resolving to “free the people from poverty” is crying to heavens for a miracle; promoting “full employment” must be a big joke; and moving towards “rising standard of living” and working to “improve quality of life” are quixotic thoughts or big farce.
If one would want to give the objective, actual and living version of the above cited constitutional provision concretely for the Philippines, it could be something like this: “The State shall promote an unjust and static social order that will ensure the poverty and dependence of the nation, and bound the people to misery through policies that provide inadequate social services, promote less employment and lowering of the standard of living, and an improved inequality of life for all.”
The above version may be sad and pitiful, but it is real and actual. It may be shameful and offensive, but it is true and current. Incidentally, it is now a wide open secret that under the baton of Malacañang, its big ever faithful and always loyal orchestra is spiritedly and loudly playing its long time favorite “Cha-Cha.”
In addition to their strong yearning for the eventual extenuation of the term of the conductor, is it possible that they would even adopt the above realistic version of Section 9 of the Phil. Constitution?
November 28, 2008