The Constitution has the paramount role in defining the fundamental structure of government powers, the rights of citizens, the protection of its wealth and the accountability of public officers, the creation of national institutions, and the expression of the values which our society would bravely fight for.
Changing this important document would significantly impact our life as a nation. Thus, I decided to devote my initial column and a few succeeding ones to the specific differences between the 1987 version and the draft Federal Constitution of the Consultative Committee created by the Office of the President. And just recently, Congress under its new leadership passed its own version.
Hopefully, this would help stir an enlightened, rigorous and critical debate on what to add, subtract or simply embellish the “Basic Law of Our Land.”
The Preamble: One that describes the purpose, history and scope of the Constitution
While “to build a just and humane society” was the goal in the 1987 Constitution, the proposed Federal Constitution expanded it to include the words, “permanent and indissoluble nation,” and one that is united and progressive. To my mind, the aim of inserting the said terminology suggests a picture of a strong, unbreakable state and people.
The National Territory: Aimed at defining what we own for the protection of national wealth and security
Instead of simply enumerating what the national territory consists of, the Federal version establishes the fact of Philippine sovereignty over its territory and that the latter term includes islands, waters encompassed by its archipelagic baselines, territorial sea, seabed, subsoil and airspace. A very striking change is the declaration that sovereignty extends to the islands outside of the archipelagic baselines under the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations and even judgments of international courts and tribunals! Even the territories that belong to our country by historic or legal right, maritime expanse beyond the Philippines’ seas are deemed covered, to the extent reserved to it by international law.
Declaration of Principles and State Policies: Lays down the ideological framework for governance
The draft Federal Constitution underpins federalism, national unity and territorial integrity; principles which are not mentioned in the 1987 Constitution. It likewise shifts the role of protector of the people from the Armed Forces to that of the “government.” As such the Armed Forces becomes an instrumentality to secure the people’s sovereignty.
Very significant is the section on Church and State. While both versions uphold its separation, the draft stipulates that relations between them shall be governed by “benevolent neutrality,” probably suggesting noninterference from the former in government matters.
Our current Constitution mandates a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons while the new one broadened the phrase by installing a policy of “freedom from weapons of mass destruction in its territory.” This is relevant to the realities of modern day innovations in weaponry and armaments.
Impressive is the suggested proviso on public disclosure because it removed the clause “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law” when it comes to full disclosure of all public interest transactions. In sum, there are no limitations to the policy of full transparency in government activities.
However, what is troubling is that while the 1987 Constitution guarantees full respect for human rights, the proposed federal one deletes the same and in lieu thereof, uses the phrase “ full respect for the person and right to participate in all processes.”
In the realm of business and economic affairs, the draft focused on developing an independent and competitive national economy and removed self-reliance from its objectives. One explanation for this is the fact that today’s global economy is interconnected, very much linked up, and is growing rapidly that we cannot isolate ourselves from the world and shirk from the need to aggressively compete in the international market.
From a rallying point of autonomy for local governments in the 1987 Constitution, the proposed version recognizes the need to enshrine the principle of subsidiarity and federalism.
Particularly disheartening is the deletion of the entire clause on the prohibition of political dynasties and equal access to opportunities for public service in the Declaration of Principles. This is a very critical revision because this particular section of the Constitution serves as a guiding light for those who govern and nails down what each of us can expect from our leaders and officials. Fierce debate on this one shall be expected because the aim of federalism is to decentralize and not to concentrate powers in the hands of a few.
These are only three sections of the suggested Federal charter and yet, we can clearly discern the potential major consequences and implications of the changes. Hopefully, the national discourse on this would be broad and meaningful so that we shall eventually formulate a clear constitutional framework that would effectively deliver the much delayed progress and deep sense of national pride to our people.
 
Ariel F. Nepomuceno is a management consultant on strategy and investment.