THE 1987 CONSTITUTION REVISITED

Here are some of my views concerning our 1987 Constitution. Now, let me be clear though - I am totally against amending our charter, and most especially if it is done with very suspicious timing. Before pro Con-Ass rah-rah boys misinterpret me as jumping to their side of the fence, perhaps when hell freezes over!

- The 1987 Constitution is an amorphous document of dubious origin.

- A constitution is the embodiment of expression of the will of the people through its elected delegates to a constitutional convention. The people's participation is a conditio sine qua non to the legitimacy of a constitution.

- The dramatis personae who shaped the 1987 Constitution were handpicked by only one person whose legitimacy and authority is a classic case in constitutional law. They only reflect the wishes of their principal since they were not elected by the people.

- The 1987 Constitution is the reflex action against the excesses of President Marcos. The persons who drafted the 1987 Constitution were too involved in the events of the time to be free from bias and prejudice.

- The 1987 Constitution is best described as "circumlocutory" and "pleaonastic" in the sense that it uses a lot of words that are multi-dimensional in meaning and have almost no legal connotations.

It is possible to have the legislature constitute itself into an assembly to amend the Constitution. But the timing is way off mark and maliciously suspect. Also, the legislators must disqualify themselves from running for any post in the elections immediately after the amendments are approved. This proviso is duly supported in many legal circles on the theory that it provides a safeguard against any self-serving act or acts by members of the legislature.

After all that's said, it is my firm belief that if and when such amendments should take place, it must be done long after President Arroyo is no longer in absolute power.

NO to Con-Ass.

(Image from http://www.pryo.net/)