“Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.”
-Friedman, Milton & Rose, Free to Choose— A Personal Statement, 1980
Curious as to how one writes a Constitution, I went on and dug a bit. That and, I must admit a bit of envy since Gloria and Pimentel are the only ones playing. That’s not fair, is it?
“Mummy! I want my toys too!”
I digress.
I asked myself, if I was the one drafting a constitution, “how would I do it?” In arrogance and presumptuousness, sprinkled with a bit of crazy (OK, a lot of crazy), and several nights of writing and rewriting, it turns out that it is pretty darn easy to “write” one. So now you can go get yourself a copy of the madness called, “Articles of Republic“. Go ahead and click save to download/view the pdf.
I’ll wait, twiddling my thumbs.
You got it? Let’s move a bit.
The mind knows the rightness, the certainty of this path, but my gut tells me that this is one huge folly.
Let me explain. Remember I said that it was pretty darn easy to write one? No joke. 6,000 words of crap in tahoma 14 font and in 19 pages? pretty darn easy to do. Especially with the word “section,” as the most often repeated word in the thing. Not being a lawyer or anything close to having any knowledge of law, the research took a bit but with Google, not what it would have been in a real world library.
You’ll find a lot of sections borrowed from previous constitutions like that section on citizenry was influenced by the 1973 Constitution. The idea behind Regional Governments is heavily borrowed from Hong Kong’s basic law and the one on Metro Manila’s idea came from the burroughs of New York, Montreal and London mashed up with the concept of Hong Kong. Our existing regional divisions can be used for a future federal state. That includes all our autonomous regions. And Metro Manila is promoted to that level. The idea is that while each region is given certain limits as to what their basic law should be, the form and structure what their government would be is left purposely ambiguous.
You will also notice that the legislature in this piece remains bicameral but with greater power given to Senators. The point being, it is difficult getting 200 people on the same page and while everyone needs to be represented, they already are— in where it counts the most at the State/Regional level. Having each region be represented by one senator reduces that complexity and still allows for accountability. Yet one can argue that there are times when the lowest district needs to be represented in greater degree. That’s when the House only comes in.
Also, compensation is also left to every region. They pay their senators. They pay their representatives.
Each region can have their own courts of law— but final adjudication is left to the Supreme Court. Education, Healthcare, Police are left to the regional government. they can choose to ignore it or not. So you see, much power is given to every region of the republic.
The Federal Government is much reduced in sized but increased in power. The President is given greater control over the executive branch. It is up to him to structure it. The notion of civil service is left purposely ambiguous. He’s the one running the show, after all. So why don’t we give him the full helm?
The whole premise is that each “region is on their own save that which is foreign”. And yes, the whole Article of Republic borrows heavily from Friedman, Milton and Rose on the notion that “Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom”. Whether or not Articles of Republic succeeds in showing all this, I don’t know.
Let us digress a bit so i can point you to people far wiser than I am on this whole charter change issue: The round up of interesting points of view starts here. Ding talks ‘Federal Republic of the Philippines: A Preview‘, The Jester points us to the funny of “The Pimentel Proposal“, Dean Jorge discusses “the excuse” this government has made to push forward with Charter Change—- ancestral domains, indigenous peoples, the Warrior Lawyer in GMA’s Federalism of Convenience says “So all this talk of federalism is really a push for charter change.” Lastly, Abe Margallo’s Federalism: a Consitutional response to secession is a must read too.
That said, I spoke of folly.
What is a plan without execution? What is a Constitution in its most basic form? is it not a plan— the architectural drawing of what a nation ought to be?
Writing this piece of crap has been an eye opener. To research, to write, is easy. But I can say without hesitation that it is absolutely wrong. I have greater appreciation now for the sacredness of the Constitution. I strongly believe that should it be changed, then it must be a work of men, not just one man or a few ones. It must be a work of the Filipino Nation. Every line must be debated. It should not be rushed. It should be a work that represents what it means to be Filipino and who we want to be.
People say that they are not in favor of charter change simply because it is Arroyo who is doing the pushing. I agree. In her hands this sacred document will be in jeopardy. The danger of it being a travesty is too great to ignore.
It isn’t also to say we should not consider changes in the future. Writing this has made me realize that an Amendment is simply not enough. We either need to throw it out the window or keep it. On the other hand some people think we shouldn’t waste time on this.
After all the endless debate, after all the push for charter change that seemingly all hellbent on this— wouldn’t you say that it is only right we ask our people? Put it out to a vote in 2010 that we may finally settle the issue. We need the voice of the taxi driver, the house help, the janitor, the housewife, the lowly office worker, the CEO, the OFW. We need everyone’s opinion on this. If our people agree, we can vote in Members of a Constitutional Convention after 2010. They can take as much time as possible to debate the merits of what our future ought to be. If changes need to be made, it need not be rushed. That is the wisest and best course.
Articles of Republic is licensed under:
Articles of Republic by Cocoy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
Cocoy, great attempt!
You might wanna give second thought on the passage “beseeching the blessing of God Almighty” considering that there are a lot of indigenous tribes that don’t subscribe to monotheistic religions (so this aspect might exclude them). It also becomes a point of contention in our aspirations of becoming a secular society (if that is your belief/aspiration as well).
There also seems to be a lot more of general focus on personal, or in this case, regional accountability for people’s fortunes…
benign0, yeah. you’re right. i also noticed some typos etc.and that also hammers my point: Writing a constitution should never be done by one person or just a few people. it NEEDS the input of everyone. every provision needs to be debated.
but is our people really interested in it?
if our politicians don’t have their own hidden agenda, the wisest and only course is to call it for a vote. Let our people decide if they really want to change the charter once and for all. if they do not, they do not.
to be honest, we don’t really need to change it at all.
I can’t agree more. Constitutions were only meant to be a framework. It’s like our own relationship with our DNA. Our DNA spells out what may generally predispose us to be, but does not in any way describe our overall character as a person.
An over-focus on the Constitution can easily be interpretted as a belief that the society is only as good as its Constitution.
Besides, I find it so ironic that some ink on a piece of paper is being made out to be such a huge factor in the country’s future fortunes considering that we have time and again proven to be a people who regard Laws and Rules as mere recommendations and annoyances to be circumvented.
cyberspace forces, cocoy? LOL
@jesterinexile LOL. See, those are the little things i left in *to be noticed*
Seriously, Georgia and Russia have been trading shots across their servers, for example.
Cyberspace is a battle ground so much so that the US Government is thinking of a Cyber Command though ars is also reporting that they put that idea on hibernate mode.
The Internet is where future wars are going to be fought and are already being fought.
The Constitution is NOT a plan or a vision of the society. It is to me first and foremost and most importantly, a Contract between the sovereign People and the Government they establish.
I congratulate you however for undertaking the exercise. However, if you were trying to write a Constitution based on a vision, you have probably written one that reflects your own present station in life.
I urge you to look up the famous works of JOHN RAWLS, in particular the book A Theory of Justice, in which he discusses extensively and fascinatingly how a Constitution ought to be created.
He proposes a marvelous gedankenexperiment called The Original Position, in which we imagine that we are to write a Constitution and are deciding on the most basic Principles we want to build into the Text of the Constitution. But let me leave it for you to discover Rawls’ remarkable idea.
thanks djb! i shall!
Benign0,
Think about “the ink” on your Employment Contract or Deed of Title to your house, or the ink you put on paper everytime you sign a check.
The Constitution is that kind of “ink” except it is a legally binding contract among us all and between us and the govt.
It is not a “framework” or “scaffolding” upon which to do “constitutional carpentry” or hobby work.
[...] In the last eight years of my online presence, I’ve seen a few people who applied such Blog 2.0 principles in their early writing. One was a guy who went by the name of ‘Remington870′ in the forum PinoyExchange.com (PEx). I re-published his manifesto “Blue Print for Our Future” back in 2002 after coming across it in this PEx thread. It was an inspiration for my own stab at coming up with a similar framework (my aptly- but generically-titled Solution Framework) which I hoped would evolve into a significant node in my website as new ideas to add to this framework came to me. The only other person with a similar piece of work I am aware of is Cocoy in his 16-part piece “Understanding Nation Building” which he published in his blog Big Mango back in October of 2005 (sorry Cocoy, the new layout in your blog makes it difficult to reference the link to that series of articles). Cocoy, in fact, continues to exhibit the same predisposition to building coherent ideas in his more recent attempt to write an entire Constitution himself. [...]
[...] think about the the Arithmetic Problem of Partylist and how in a comment to my post, “The Folly of Good Intensions,” DJB had ask me to read John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice: the two principles that would [...]
[...] think about the the Arithmetic Problem of Partylist and how in a comment to my post, “The Folly of Good Intensions,” DJB had ask me to read John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice: the two principles that would [...]