Speech
of
His Excellency Fidel V. Ramos
President of the Philippines
To the Philippine Constitution Association in observance of Constitution Day

[Delivered at the Grand Ballroom, Century Park Hotel, Manila, February 8, 1997]

A charter for
the 21st century

TEN YEARS ago, our people ratified the 1987 Constitution—affirming it as the embodiment of their political ideals and aspirations.

A decade may be too short a period in a Constitution’s history to claim perfection for its purposes—but whether it is too short or long enough, let me begin by pointing out the debt we Filipinos owe the 1987 Constitution and those who wrote it. For this Charter has held our political community together through a time of troubles. And our soldiers and policemen have consecrated this Constitution with their blood—by giving up their lives in its defense—against coup attempts, insurgencies and separatism.

The Constitution as a living instrument

These past 10 years have been—for us—extraordinary years. They have tested our collective resolve—our will as a people to stand up for our civil liberties. In our darkest hours over this past decade—and there have been quite a few—this Charter has lighted our way back to peace, stability and development.

Over these hundred years of our life as a self-conscious Filipino nation, four constitutions—those of 1899, 1935, 1973 and 1987—have successively established and organized our political community.

As your President, I am delighted to join the Philippine Constitution Association in honoring here tonight all those wise men and women—living or dead—who had taken part in writing those Constitutions.

That a constitution is an extraordinary document is among democracy’s most basic beliefs—and for good reason.

Unlike all other man-made laws, which government creates to regulate the conduct of men and their relations to one another, and to the state, a constitution is the law which creates and regulates government itself.

As the seventeenth-century English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes says, “The fundamental law in every commonwealth is that which being taken away the commonwealth fails and is utterly dissolved.”

This democratic faith warns us—rightly—against any capricious tinkering with the Constitution. But we also have warning, from other sources, that we should not allow a constitution to restrain a political community in a legal straitjacket—rendering it unable to respond to changing reality.

In Thomas Jefferson’s words, we should not treat a constitution “with sanctimonious reverence, as too sacred to be touched and beyond amendment or replacement.”

Every constitution is a mirror of its time

The fact is that change is inherent in any constitution. Because each constitution embodies the circumstance and purpose of the political community it establishes—during a specific political period. As President Aguinaldo said of the Malolos Constitution, each charter is the “mirror” of the political culture of its time.

With the 1987 Constitution as guide, the Ramos Administration has restored stability to national society—by persuading armed dissidents fighting the State to rejoin civil society and to take part in the collective effort to lift up the common life.

We are using the same Constitution to achieve self-sustaining economic growth and long-delayed social, electoral, political and administrative reforms.

Guided by the Charter’s egalitarian principles, we are carrying out a Social Reform Agenda to ensure the more-equitable sharing of the fruits of development and to provide for the minimum basic needs of the Filipino poor.

And, in obedience to its mandate, we are opening up opportunities for full people empowerment—by giving concrete support to the endeavors of non-Government organizations, cooperatives, other people’s organizations, families and concerned citizens.

The changing purposes of the political community

Throughout this historical period, the Ramos Administration has been acutely aware that the Constitution is a living instrument of our people’s collective will and purpose.

And we submit that people’s purposes change as their circumstances change and, likewise, that the priorities of the political community change, to suit changing reality.

Also subject to the reality of change is the very standard of legality—as the political community expands the reach of its ethical dimensions. Even an unwritten constitution—such as that of the British—which is the product of custom, grows and is altered with the change of custom.

The modern reality of the knowledge highway and information technology has indeed expanded the interests of nations and the reach of peoples.

Much as the house of the Filipino nation is constantly being rebuilt, so must its charter change—to suit new needs, new circumstances, new goals, new hopes.

How does a constitution change? We all know the formal processes by which ours may be amended, revised or replaced.

But most constitutions are altered more informally, more subtly and more readily—by judicial interpretation of their provisions in a manner that accords with the political and social climate of the time.

This problem of adapting the charter to the prevailing political and social environment has been brought forcefully to our concern by the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the privatization of the Manila Hotel. The most casual canvass of editorial commentary and column analysis on this issue will tell us that the High Tribunal’s decision goes against the grain of informed opinion.

The pitfalls off protectionism

The circumstances of the controversy are well known. Let me just say this—I believe the main dissenting opinion summed up precisely what is at issue when it pointed out “that the second paragraph of Section 10, Article 12 of the Constitution is pro-Filipino but not anti-alien“; and that the framers of the 1987 Charter wisely left the degree of the right of preference that would be given to qualified Filipinos to the discretion of political policymakers—for them to adjust “as time dictates and circumstances warrant.”

I have clearly stated, and I say it again, that I respect the decision of the High Court—and my Administration will honor it unequivocally. But I regret that, in deciding on the Manila Hotel case in the way it did, the Supreme Court majority has given the outmoded and failed economic theory of protectionism a new lease on life in this country.

Too much is at stake—our war against poverty and long-range campaign for sustainable development, no less, for the President of the Republic to remain unconcerned about this happening. And so—I speak.

Ironically enough, we in the Philippines were left behind East Asia’s growth precisely because we tried to protect our industries from foreign competition, and barricaded ourselves in isolation behind the false comfort of the closed market.

We mistakenly equated political nationalism with economic self-sufficiency, and lost two decades of opportunity.

Only now are we beginning to realize that we must join the mainstream of global commerce if we are not to return to the condition of “sick man of Asia.”

Only now are we beginning to realize that we must take part in the vigorous life of the Asia-Pacific economies.

Only now are we beginning to realize that our sustainable development depends on our faith in ourselves—in the competitiveness of our industries, in the productivity of our work-people and in the strategic advantage of our central location astride two great oceans of global commerce.

And this is why the Ramos Presidency has been engaged—these past five years—in a great effort to open up our economy to free-market forces and to spur the competitiveness of our industry, agriculture and service sectors.

This entire strategy—which has until now worked so well—the recent Supreme Court decision on the Manila Hotel has jeopardized.

Cooperation: the spirit of checks and balances

Right now, our urgent need is to mitigate the effect of this ruling on our privatization program and on our effort to attract foreign investment. Government must respond to the doubts the ruling has raised—within the international and domestic business communities—about the integrity of our bidding process.

It is the conventional wisdom all around the world that to generate jobs, create opportunities for livelihood and to speed up development in poorer countries such as ours, one must bring in foreign investments and encourage the private sector to engage in joint ventures with Government where massive financial investments are necessary. This is the basic rationale behind our privatization efforts.

And doing so is particularly crucial for our country—since our own savings rate is so low, compared with those of our more dynamic neighbors.

Clearly, the three branches of government must reexamine their proper relationship under the republican doctrine of checks and balances.

Our traditional view in this country has been that of executive, legislature and judiciary in competition—frequently, in opposition—for political power and authority.

My own view is different. I believe that, under a constitutional government, presidents, lawmakers and justices share political power and authority.

The real power they hold individually and corporately is always limited. Their overall authority, however, becomes much more potent and effective only when they work in concert—when they (the three branches) remember that they are—always—only parts of a constitutional whole.

Dangers of an intrusive Supreme Court

I have firmly believed that the doctrine of separation of powers delimits the power of each branch of government within its own sphere of expertise and competence. And matters bearing on policymaking and economic development are inherently a joint legislative-executive function and not a judicial function.

To my mind, even a liberal view of the Supreme Court’s “expanded jurisdiction” under Article 8, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution does not justify its imposition of its own economic perspectives upon the other branches of government.

I share the view of Judge Learned Hand, who believed that a political system’s capacity to endure depends on the exercise of judicial restraint—which preserves the constitutional allocation of powers by the exercise of respect of the unique function of the courts by the courts themselves.

Let me quote from a 1993 study by two young Filipino lawyers on “The Economic Policy-determining Functions of the Supreme Court in Times of National Crisis”:

“If there would be any source that would cause detrimental inconvenience to the formulation of uniform policy, no other body by virtue of its constitutional powers would be more damaging than an intrusive Supreme Court.

“Decisions rendered by a politically non-accountable tribunal have the inherent quality of being beyond immediate correction. . . .”

Pole-vaulting into the new century

Let me now sum up. My argument here is simple and straightforward, but beyond and above the specific issue of term extension or reelection of the President (which I do not support). A democracy requires a vigorous and continuing self-assessment of the constitutional principles on which it stands. It cannot confine itself to the orthodoxies of any period. And right now, our greatest need is for a constitution that will respond to our political community’s needs as we strive to fast-track the modernization of our country.

We need a charter that will enable us to pole-vault into the 21st century.

Over these five past years we Filipinos have accomplished a great deal. And we are holding our heads high in the community of nations, having regained their respect. But there is a great deal more of hard work we must do.

Measured against those of our progressive vigorous neighbors, our economy still lags badly in most of the indices of modernization, especially in the incidence of poverty. And among our people we have yet to build up enough social responsibility to start off the tradition of civility and teamwork in our public life.

The international media may praise our country for its democratic development. But you and I know the kind of “democracy” we have is still far from the democracy we aspire to put in place in order that our people may win the future.

In the economy, the oligarchy is clearly still in charge, even if a broader middle class is emerging. Many business sectors are still cartelized in spite of the breakup of many large monopolies in the wake of the deregulation of banking, telecommunications and transport. And many of our business-people still incline toward speculative investments that do little long-term good for the economy as a whole.

And, in national politics—even in the midst of crisis—wannabes and kingmakers still play their little games of one-upmanship.

In 1890 Rizal, envisioning “The Philippines a Century Hence,” saw, as decreed by fate, the advancement and ethical progress of this country. In our time I, as your President, see Government’s duty as that of fulfilling this heroic vision—of a Philippines where people, under God, can live together: in freedom, dignity and prosperity; in one nation at one with the world.

Global competitiveness for our country

I see Government’s mission—over the foreseeable future—as that of attaining global competitiveness for our country and empowerment in the fullest sense for our people.

In this effort, we must take every advantage of our archipelagic configuration and our strategic location—using our synergy of islands, people, natural resources and surrounding seas—to make this country a more efficient creator of wealth.

And we must begin by reviewing all our political and economic institutions—to ensure they are responsive to the requirements of the new century.

A key lesson from our experience is that reform must be conceptualized and carried out as a holistic system. The economy, public administration, politics, elections and civil society are all interlocked: what happens in one sector affects all the others.

We cannot reform one sector without affecting the others almost simultaneously. All must reform together.

Over these past five years, we have accomplished a great deal because we—the people and Government—have pulled together. Arid, I daresay Government has merited popular support because it has always tried to keep on the side of what is right and proper, even if sometimes unpopular.

Let me assure you that the Ramos Administration will always interpret the Constitution on the side of the good—and in the public interest. Only by so doing can Government justify its call for national unity—its challenge for everyone to work together for the greater good of the Filipino nation.

Building a new home for the nation

To rekindle the spirit of nationalism and democracy in our people’s hearts, I have declared 1997 as “Constitution Awareness Year.” I am placing the activities and celebrations of this special year under the auspices of Philconsa—this organization.

I enjoin all of you here to help in the campaign to raise our people’s awareness of their rights and duties as citizens; and to ensure that our constitutional ideals remain strong and relevant as our country enters the 21st century.

We Filipinos cannot be satisfied with merely repairing the house of the nation—because the real task now is to build a new home for the Filipino nation in the 21st century.

A hundred years ago, Rizal dreamt of a free and prosperous Philippines. Today, our task as a people is to lay the foundations of a renewed Filipino nation that will endure through the new century—and the new millennium.