Judging from the Joint Resolution of the House and Senate to amend the “restrictive economic provisions” of the Constitution, only three specific amendments are being sought.
In this column, I examine the whole body of the present constitution with its very broad contents.
This is an exceptional case among modern written political constitutions.
A very wordy political constitution
The Constitution of 1987 is a very wordy document. It covers many topics, far beyond the coverage of most modern democratic constitutions.
The best way to bring this out is by comparing its content against some model country constitutions.
For this reason, I choose merely to compare to the US Constitution – a model among written constitutions for almost 250 years.
Then, I compare it with the most minimalist constitution I could find in the literature among developing countries – the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia. Despite Indonesia’s turbulent political and economic history in our post-World War II world, that minimalist constitution has enabled it to become an economic success story among developing countries.
Let’s do this comparison simply by counting words – almost child’s play – but very seriously, for this topic is about nation-building!
Comparison: US constitution. The Philippine 1987 Constitution contains 21,660 words.
The original US Constitution which was ratified in 1788 (!) contained only 4,412 words, minus the signatures. In the course of almost two-and-a-half centuries in that country’s history, the US Constitution was amended 27 times. Those amendments added only another 3,098 words to the text. (In sum, the US Constitution contains up to 7,510 words).
The Philippine Constitution is five times as long as the original US Constitution (that is, 21,660 versus 4,412 words!).
Why is the US Constitution so short and the Philippine Constitution so long?
The US Constitution embodied mainly a brief but inspiring preamble about the purpose of the nation. The main body of the constitution was about the structure of government and its officials and institutions. It also gave short instructions on what (1) the federal government and (2) members of the American union could and could not do. These were mainly on simple rules on money, taxation and debt and on assurances that trade in goods and services among the member states remained free and non-discriminatory.
The Philippine Constitution is very long for a number of reasons: (1) a long preamble; (2) detailed specifics on the structure of government and its institutions: and (3) a long list of state policies pre-conceived by the framers of the constitution.
In the case of (3) alone, the major articles of the Constitution that cover economic, social and cultural dimensions cover a total of 6,322 words, to wit:
a. Declaration of principles and state policies, 779 words;
b. National economy and patrimony, 1,745;
c. Social and human rights, 1,438; and
d. Bill of rights, 1,042.
So, in the case alone of (3), the Philippine Constitution by far has already exceeded the length of the original American constitution.
Most of the policies and guidance given in (3) above do not appear in the Constitutions of many countries. By adding more instructions, regulations and state policies that are not integral to the political constitutions of most governments, the Philippine Constitution has created more burdens for its duly constituted government to follow as “fundamental laws.”
Other governments simply have the flexibility to legislate on economic matters as required by the exigency and needs of the times. Not so for the Philippine government. The fundamental laws provide strictures around which ordinary legislation on economic and business matters have to navigate.
The simple Indonesian Constitution. The Indonesian Constitution of 1945 is the simplest among political constitutions that I have encountered.
The Indonesian constitution consists of only 1,644 words. This was the version released on the internet by the Indonesian Information department in 1989. If we take away the headings to separate articles (which I thought was the original case of that document), it is really as short as 1,569 words.
(Contrast this to the 21,660 words of the Philippine Constitution, which is 13.8 times longer.)
The whole Indonesian Constitution has only 37 articles. Most of the text of these sections are skeletal directions and instructions.
It is relevant to quote the Indonesia’s Department of Information on the brevity of the Constitution here:
“It is enough if the Constitution contains only fundamental rules, contains only guidelines of instruction to the Central Government and to other authorities of the State for conducting the life of the State and providing social well-being. Especially for a new state and a young state, it is better if that written Fundamental Law contains only basic rules, whilst the provisions implementing those basic rules are left to statutes which are more easily drawn up, altered and revoked.
“The [fundamental rules] need to be binding. For that reason, the more flexible (“elastic”) those rules are, the better. Thus we must guard against the constitutional system being left behind the times. Let us not go so far as to make a constitution which is quickly out-moded (verouderd)…”
I read the above quotation before the House committee of the whole when I testified before it in its hearing on the restrictive economic provisions. Earlier, too, I also referred to the simple Indonesian constitution before the Senate sub-committee hearing on the same subject.
When Indonesia finally decided to adopt a more expanded political constitution during the post-Suharto era, the whole text of the Constitution of 1945 was made into the full preamble of the new constitution.
The expanded constitution, including this preamble, consists only of 5,783 words.
For archives of previous Crossroads essays, go to: https://www.philstar.com/authors/1336383/gerardo-p-sicat. Visit this site for more information, feedback and commentary: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/gpsicat/