The same was true in the case of the 1935 Constitution, the second one we had. It was drafted by a constitutional convention of Filipinos called by an American Congress pursuant to the Tydings-Mcduffie Law. To be sure it was so far the best we had but it was not, strictly speaking, in accordance with the people’s sovereign will. Before it was submitted to the people for approval in a plebiscite, it had to be approved by the President of the United States of America.
Worse yet is the 1973 Constitution. It was hatched at a time when our country was experiencing social and political convulsion caused by the first quarter storm of the late sixties. Before the Constitutional Convention of elected delegates could come up with a finished product, Martial Law was declared during which some of the delegates were incarcerated and others fled or went underground. Its ratification by the so-called "Citizens Assemblies" was the greatest hoax perpetrated on the Filipinos. The will of the dictator rather than the will of the sovereign people prevailed in its ratification. Hence it was the first document dumped in the garbage can and substituted with a fourth revolutionary "Freedom Constitution" following the successful non-violent overthrow of the despot.
Now that we have the fifth Constitution drafted in 1987 under the freest atmosphere, there is a move to change it anew obviously because of some perceived imperfections mainly attributed to the time constraints and the still lingering martial law phobia under which it was made.
That the present Constitution needs some changes is indisputable. Questionable however are the timing, the manner and the kind of changes being proposed. The present political instability greatly resembles the social and political turmoil preceding the adoption of the 1973 Constitution. Thus this move to change the charter is seen only as means to bail this beleaguered administration out of its present predicament. It is being done for the right reason but at the wrong time. The move also has all the earmarks of the hasty manner under which the 1987 Constitution was adopted thereby creating the fear that we will have the same charter replete with imperfections because of how change is undertaken. But the timing and manner becomes more objectionable because of the kind of changes being proposed.
Changing the charter entails either an amendment or a revision. Amendment consists of looking at some vague, useless, impractical, superfluous or even stupid provisions in the document with the aim of making them clearer, useful, or effective. Revision consists of reviewing not only some or several provisions but all of them with the aim of changing the entire document. The difference lies in the intention. Amendment is aimed at improving the Constitution while revision is aimed at replacing it. Changing the structure of the government from unitary and presidential with three separate and independent branches to federal and parliamentary with two branches is an example of revision. Retaining the present form with three branches but making some branches like the legislative branch more efficient by converting it into a unicameral body is an example of mere amendment.
Apparently the proposed changes entail revision. In other words a sixth 2006-07 Constitution is being proposed. But it is too short a time to say that the 1987 Constitution needs to be replaced. The Constitution of the USA crafted by its founding fathers still exists after more than 200 years although it has undergone so many amendments. Our present constitution is only 20 years old yet it is already being replaced rather than just being amended or improved. Moreover, if revision is really called for, it should not be done hastily. Such drastic change requires more time. With an indifferent or poorly informed electorate and an electoral commission of almost zero credibility, rushing such proposal creates a perception that the proponents are merely pushing for their own hidden political agenda than trying to get the sovereign people’s true will. This is made more manifest by two pronged juggernaut moves they have launched both of which are unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional for Congress to propose such revisions only upon a vote of – of the members of the House of Representatives without the concurrence of – of the members of the Senate. More unconstitutional is for the people to directly propose such revision through a system of initiative: first because of lack of enabling law; and second, because even with an enabling law, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to amend rather than to revise it.
The Constitution is the single, most important and basic document that holds the Nation together. Hastily and illegally revising it will just put to naught all the efforts of the proponents and lead to dire consequences. It is not yet too late for our politicians to realize the folly of their actions.