Reading constitutions that governed our country through the years, I am surprised that while Filipinos felt the need to amend provisions to meet particular challenges in time, the preamble remained unchanged, stuck in its banalities and sadly bereft of the emotive appeal that might have rallied the nation together.
This is unfortunate because in a sense, the preamble is the most important part of a constitution. Indeed it can be said to be the soul of a nation. It sets out the context of the constitution being written, or amendments being made thereto, as the case may be. Yet it is the part that was most neglected. We dash through its articles and subheadings as if the writing of a constitution is only about the technicalities of its provisions.
Other countries’ constitutions give more importance to its preamble. Of these, my favorite is Poland’s Constitution (not the US, successful it may have been for Americans). It was written after the tumultuous people power revolt against a communist regime and comes closest to our ideals and experiences. It is a benchmark to consider for the preamble to our Constitution. While not wishing to denigrate the efforts that went into writing the present preamble, it merely repeats an anemic paragraph of generalities that could not grip a nation as it should have. It was, after all, being written at a great moment of our history.
I read in part the diary of 1986 Concom to understand why this was so. With every due respect to the eminent drafters, I blame what I call ‘a working style.’ Not that it was not debated, it was. Not that they did not mean well or that they were not lofty, they were. The problem was they wrestled with ‘terms’ and ‘meanings’ with a piece of paper (the past preamble) in hand. I suppose this will happen again. Indeed, we have yet to sit in plenary to tackle the preamble. Or we probably would not do so at all. It may be that this is not considered important compared to the pressing issues of form of government, structure of republic and economic liberalization. I seek to differ.
In the first session of the committee, there was some discussion of whether the revised Constitution would be called the 1987 Constitution (as revised). Gov. Romualdo objected and said it only reminds us of what divided the country after Marcos’ martial law. I suggested calling it just the Philippine Constitution, like other countries do. Whatever amendments are made, they are just that — amendments. There would be a time at some future date when the preamble of the Philippine Constitution could embrace the entire context of constitution-making as it evolved in our history. Well, I have not stopped thinking since then. It may be the time now.
But it would still need more than just wrestling with the meanings of words. It would mean bringing ourselves out of that debating room, and using our imagination venture into the wide spaces in which Filipinos have struggled, with blood and tears to found a nation that was truly free. The negligence on the writing of our Constitution’s preamble dates back many years. The Malolos Constitution may have been the original document of our nationhood but the timorous effort, rather than the spectacular boldness of our forefathers to enter into the arena of nations, animated the preamble.
Preambles from the Malolos Republic, 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions reflect that tentativeness, an implicit unwillingness to face up to the difficulties and challenges that goes with nation-building. If a preamble is the statement of the historical identity of a nation, then ours has failed to make the grade. It should have inspired generations of Filipinos each time they turned to the Constitution.
It may be true that preambles of other countries’ constitution are equally without fire and brimstone. The American example is admired for its brevity and generality. A case can be made for that too, if that is what is desired. But to my mind it does not embrace Filipino particularity and what made us a distinct people. We do not do justice to our history and struggles as a nation by omitting these events in the preamble of our Constitution.
For this effort, the better model, to my mind is the Polish Constitution which is only a few paragraphs longer. It states the principles and reasons for the Constitution but it also includes the events which led to its making. It indirectly refers to the 1989 revolution, to its political, religious and cultural diversity, its citizens abroad (of which we have more than seven million) as well as an allusion to its history and its ancestors.
Here is its text:
"Beholden to our ancestors for their labors, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values, Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic.
Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years’ heritage, Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world, Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family, Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland,
Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies, Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,
Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland as the basic law for the State, based on respect for freedom and justice, cooperation between the public powers, social dialogue as well as on the principle of aiding in the strengthening the powers of citizens and their communities.
We call upon all those who will apply this Constitution for the good of the Third Republic to do so paying respect to the inherent dignity of the person, his or her right to freedom, the obligation of solidarity with others, and respect for these principles as the unshakable foundation of the Republic of Poland."
Isn’t that great? If we are to understand what constitutions are for and why it has become necessary that we amend the present one then the first stop should be its preamble. It should be broad in narration and principle but particularly Filipino. If there is a single idea that can be said to be the soul of our nation, it is our relentless pursuit of self-determination and this we must say in the preamble of our Constitution.