I usually do not reply to abrasive readers’ letters. But occasionally, a letter writer comes along to say something so erroneous it needs to be answered.
The offending letter said my column on Jose Rizal as Asian Hero was a great article. But he adds, “At least the column did not say that Jose Rizal was for Charter change.”
In fact Rizal was for Charter change and so did most Filipino heroes who were in Madrid at the time of political ferment in Spain. They joined progressive Spaniards in the clamor for more democratic government. At that time, the reform movement was focused on Filipino representation in the Spanish Cortes.
The small circle of Filipinos addressed their concern to the Spanish colonial government to make the necessary changes (in its constitution) to allow the Philippines to achieve its potential. They fought for the recognition of the Philippines as a province of Spain to enable it to become part of a federalist structure. Federalism even then was being proposed as a solution to relations between Spain and her colonies. But Spain had her own internal wars and debates on such ideas.
Spanish intellectuals and politicians, chiefly the Freemasons, shared the reforms sought by Filipinos but these were blocked by conservative forces.
Rizal et al had believed on peaceful reforms, not unlike constitutional reforms being sought today by Filipinos. At the start our Filipino heroes believed in a peaceful way to change the status quo in the Philippines. They asked that Spaniards and Filipinos be treated as equals, that Filipinos be represented in the Spanish “Cortes” or Legislature. In addition they asked that the parishes be given to secular priests, and not to religious orders and lastly, to give Filipinos freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to fair trial.
Paramount to them was to remove religious orders in the Philippines, as they pointed out again and again was “the cause of the nation’s backwardness.”
* * *
The French historian Fernand Braudel wrote history is happening on two levels, one of them on visible events and persons and the other on a less obvious level that he called “longue duree”. Our experience today in seeking constitutional reform is still part of that struggle in the 19th century. It is happening almost imperceptibly in our history of “longue duree”. That is why we need to look back at the roots of the drive for constitutional reform.
* * *
Felino Neri, a delegate in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, traces those roots in a speech he gave before he died. It has been published in Shift, by the Ateneo Center For Social Policy and Public Affairs.
“What is our experience with the parliamentary system? During the more than 300 years of our history, our orientation was European before it ever became American. Our literature came from Europe, our young men went to Europe when they could afford to study abroad and Europe is the cradle of parliamentary government.
The Philippines sent its first delegate to the Spanish Cortes as early as 1811. A merchant of Old Manila named Ventura de los Reyes was among the signers of the Cadiz Constitution of 1812. Philippine representation lasted until the Cortes was abolished by the resurgence of absolute monarchy. After the revolution of 1820, the Constitution of 1812 was restored and the Philippines was represented again by Francisco Bringas, Vicente Posadas and Manuel Saenz.
The main objective of the Philippine Propaganda movement was for Philippine representation in the Parliament of Spain,” Neri said.
He answers directly the question of my irate reader. “The first Constitution written by a Filipino was that of the Liga Filipina by Dr. Jose Rizal. It provided for collective leadership by the Supreme Council composed of the provincial chiefs. Unlike the unipersonal leadership prescribed by the presidential system the Liga Filipina followed the Cabinet type of collective rule of the parliamentary system as well as the combination of executive and legislative functions in the same ruling body.”
* * *
But there was a break in the Filipinos’ constitutional struggle when the Americans took over the Philippines from Spain. Neri tells us that break led us to adopt the presidential system. The 1934 Constitutional Convention had a Committee on Sponsorship of some 87 members to prepare the draft Constitution. But a sub-committee that came to be known as the “seven wise men” did the actual work.
“Of this distinguished group (the seven wise men) we have among us one living witness to the fact that we would have had a parliamentary government in 1935 were it not for the fact at that time it was fully realized that the presentation of a Philippine Constitution that departed from the American model might run the grave risk of disapproval by the American president. The witness is none other that our distinguished colleague Delegate Miguel Cuaderno,” Neri said.
President Quezon himself had to remind them of the consequences of the disapproval of the Constitution by President Roosevelt. Quezon said to the group: “Gentlemen, no constitution, no independence. Laboring under that kind of burden, it is not surprising that the Constitutional Convention of 1934 turned in a faithful model of the United States Constitution of 1787.”
The Constitution was approved by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and submitted to the Filipino electorate on May 14, 1935.
Vicente Sinco, a political authority said the plebiscite was more than a mere act of ratification. It was also the legal means to determine whether the Filipinos were in favor of independence.
Under the terms of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, “if a majority of the votes cast shall be for the Constitution, such vote shall be deemed an expression of the will of the people of the Philippines Islands in favor of Philippine independence.”
The Constitutional Convention decided to set up a purely presidential form of government.
And now here’s the crunch on the relevance of these roots to the current debate on charter change. It is presumed that as an independent nation we can and should now retrace our heritage of the parliamentary system.
“The Filipino people may soberly consider the system which another democratic tradition of equal validity and certainly of greater maturity than the American, has followed to harness the power of government to the will of the people. If I have been attracted lately to the parliamentary system, it has been due principally to this characteristic of immediate responsibility.” said Recto.