There are not merely rumors but downright resolves to change the now existing and binding 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. There is one key and fundamental alteration that is said to be already decided upon and considered categorically final. This: The Country shall have a Federal System of Government – be this what it is, be this what it may. All allegations and pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is even now already considered definite and defined that in addition to the readily foreseen and loudly acclaimed Federalism, many other changes are in store for the Filipinos to cheer for or to cry about, to rejoice or to lament for – taking into account the value system, the mentality and disposition of a good number of those now reigning politicians in the Country whose mind frame is in effect “My duty to my country ends when my fidelity to my Political Party begins.” Below are a few 1987 Constitutional Provisions that may be changed – as predicted by not a few individuals close to the powers that are:
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanate from them.” (Principles, Sec. 1) Would this key and pivotal constitutional provision be changed in order to better confirm and affirm that the long existing reality in the Philippines is that sovereignty resides in the few dynastic, wealthy and powerful politicians?
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” (Principles, Sec. 6) Would this basic and fundamental constitutional provision be changed to something like the State exercises dominion over the Church, the Church is irrelevant to the State – or to state it bluntly, the Church is taboo from the Country under penalty of guillotine for Churchmen?
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.” (State Policy, Sec. 12) Would this significant and important constitutional provision be changed to provide that such unethical observances as Divorce, Renewable Marriage Contract, Same Sex Marriage, and the like, downright constitutional?
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of law.” (Bill of Rights, Sec. 1) Would this signal and precious constitutional provision be changed to legalized extra-judicial killings, to affirm the death penalty – with the pursuant option on how to go about it such as electrocution, hanging, etc., etc., under the maxim that the more gruesome the death, the better?
“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.” (Bill of Rights, Sec. 16) Would this basic and elementary constitutional provision have some conditions added thereto such as unless the accuser is poor and miserable or unless the accused is rich and powerful.
Finally, there is something curious if not downright dangerous that is making the rounds in the Country – apparently courtesy of the collaboration between Legislative and Executive Departments. This: The Constitutional Change shall be done through a Con Ass not Con Con. Amazing!