Text of the Seventeenth Jaime V. Ongpin Annual Memorial Lecture

 
Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
Good morning.
 
Dean Joey, thank you for your most generous words. This is my first time here in your school. I hear you have excellent iced tea here. I hope you have a bit of it with you this morning. I may be needing a sip or two in a while.
 
Dean Tony, I have received reports, unconfirmed, of course, to the effect that Judge Soriano issued yesterday his Order denying this government’s motion for the issuance of an arrest warrant against Senator Trillanes only because – it was your birthday. So, once, more, happy birthday, Dean.
 
I thank Mrs. Maribel Ongpin for this, her gracious invitation for me to be with you today. I consider it an honor, undeserved but most appreciated, to be given this privilege to speak before you this morning on a subject close to my heart. I do welcome every opportunity for me to fulfill my duty as a teacher to, well, spread the word, or what little I may know on the subject, beyond or outside the classrooms and lecture halls, on the need for every citizen, which, I suppose, includes the president, or, maybe, especially the president, and not just the student of the law, to understand our Constitution, to uphold and obey it, and, most importantly, to embrace it.      
 
I do hope you will pardon me though for being out of uniform, and for the long and facial hair. You see, I am on vacation, on a sabbatical, if you will. I have been writing. I am also, I suppose, on some sort of a medical break. I am still in denial mode. But I am told I may be, as many others like me, already afflicted with this syndrome known as E.D.A.D; more popularly, and sadly, known as edad.
 
My wife will confirm this. I am not yet, I think, afflicted with this ailment known as alzheimer’s disease. But I have been displaying symptoms of this other disease, known as sometimer’s disease – sometimes, I remember; sometimes I forget.
 
I shall, as assigned, share with you what little I know of our Constitution. After my discussion, and if you have questions, I am confident my beautiful mother, whom I have asked to accompany me here today, will be more than happy to answer all of them.
 
As you can see, I have, as asked, written a speech. This is a departure from my usual method for my lectures. I will try to be faithful to the words found here, which I have after all written from my heart and from my hip, and not only as a teacher, but as one of your countrymen, as a citizen of our Republic.
 
This, ladies and gentlemen, is my copy of the 1987 constitution, which, as far as I know, remains effective and therefore should still be both obeyed and upheld, regardless of whatever any president may say.
 
I reject any president who considers himself above and therefore not bound by it. I oppose any president who may want to change our Constitution simply because he cannot understand it. I dislike and cannot respect any president who publicly proclaims that our Constitution, it is nothing to him. As far as I am concerned, any president who makes such a declaration should have no business remaining in that office. He should step down.
 
It is said that we have had seven constitutions. Well, eight if we include that organic law which briefly operated in our jurisdiction during the Second World War.  This is the third of significance in our entire history as a nation. The other two, of course, are the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
 
The Malolos Constitution, the first democratic constitution ever to be promulgated in Asia, established a parliamentary form of government, but with the president and not the prime minister as head of the government.  This constitution was in place only for two years because, even as we planted the seeds of our independence, Spain, almost secretly, ceded our country in favor of the Americans, who made sure that the government organized by President Aguinaldo on the basis of that Constitution would be short-lived.
 
They quickly, and with force, replaced it, initially, with a military government, which presented a most dangerous confluence of executive, legislative and judicial powers in but one military governor. 
 
Happily for us, this system was challenged by the many libertarians among the American legislators at the time.
 
After their establishment of the First Philippine Commission, a fact-finding body headed by Mr. Schurman, and thereafter the Second Philippine Commission, led by Mr. Taft, they eventually promulgated the Philippine Bill of 1902, our second organic act, under which, executive power was vested in the civil governor and legislative power in the Philippine Commission.
 
This fundamental law paved the way for the creation in 1907 of the Philippine Assembly, a bicameral legislature, which was dissolved with the promulgation of the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916.  This act was our third charter. Also known as the Jones Law, this organic statute established a Philippine legislature, also a bicameral entity, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  This law provided for a semi-parliamentary form of government with members of the bicameral Philippine legislature serving in the governor-general's cabinet without forfeiting their seats as legislators. 
 
This system governed us until the promulgation of the Tydings-McDuffie Act, the law which authorized the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and the convoking of the constitutional convention, which framed the Constitution of 1935. This was ratified on May 14 of that year. 
 
Six months later, the Commonwealth Government was inaugurated, with Manuel L. Quezon as its first President and Sergio Osmeña as the Vice-President.  Significantly, said Constitution initially provided for a unicameral legislature known as the National Assembly.  This was converted into a bicameral congress only six years later.  Our first real experiment with a unicameral legislature failed.
 
This presidential form of government, with a bicameral legislature, persisted for almost forty years, or until 1973, when the new Constitution, the aberrant Constitution, the Marcos Constitution, adopted a parliamentary system. This was our fifth Constitution. This was the Constitution I studied in the College of Law of San Beda.
 
It transformed the president into a mere symbolic head of state.  His powers were transferred to a prime minister, who sat concurrently as head of state and of government and was a member of the unicameral national assembly.
 
That Constitution was amended in 1981.  The powers of the prime minister were returned to the president, who regained his control over the cabinet, although the prime minister was still authorized to preside over its meetings. 
 
This system continued until the dismantling of the dictatorship of Marcos in 1986. Proclamation no. 3, our sixth constitution, otherwise known as our Freedom Constitution, was promulgated by President Corazon C. Aquino shortly after the so-called People Power Revolution in EDSA. It paved the road toward the making of our seventh Constitution, the 1987 Constitution, which provided for our return to the presidential system, again with a bicameral legislature.
 
This Constitution was drafted by a most impressive assembly of jurists, legislators, educators and citizens. Among them were Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Justice Florenz D. Regalado, Justice Adolf Azcuna, Senator Ambrosio Padilla, Speaker J.B. Laurel Jr. Of course, our beloved Fr. Bernas was also among them.
 
This fair question now arises: this 1987 Constitution, is it a good constitution?
 
By definition, a Constitution is that “body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised.” This is from Cooley.
 
A longer definition is offered by Mr. Justice Malcolm. It is “the written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments of government for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.” My students do not like this definition, but only because it is long.
 
My, well, not so industrious students prefer this definition: “it is the fundamental law.”
 
You know, ladies and gentlemen, I would also give them full credit in their recitation for this. For our Constitution is indeed, to repeat, our “fundamental law.”
 
Allow me now, in explanation, to borrow my father's words.
“The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all persons must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intention, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.”
The purpose of the Constitution is to prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain fixed principles on which government is founded.
 
And so I ask again: is the 1987 Constitution, written by the 1986 Constitutional Commission, a good Constitution?
 
It is best to remember that no Constitution can be considered perfect. Our Constitution is only thirty-one years old. I am almost twice older than it.
 
I borrow once more my father's words.
 
“The Constitution must be quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and framework of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly ‘in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,' where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the constitutional convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.”
         
 In other words, it should be understood that, perhaps, not enough time has passed since its promulgation for us to really be in a position to gauge whether or not this document written by these distinguished men and women is good for our nation.
 
It is basic that a good written constitution must be broad, brief and definite or clear.
 
It must be broad because it must not only provide for the organization of the entire government and cover all persons and things within the territory of the State but more so because it is supposed to embody the past, to reflect the present and to anticipate the future. It must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency. It should be “not only the imprisonment of the past but the unfolding of the future,” to which it may be added that it should also be the fulfilment of the present.
 
It ought to brief.  It must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend.
 
It should be definite or clear, lest ambiguity in its provisions result in confusion and divisiveness among the people. The exception is with respect to rules deliberately worded in a vague manner, like the due process clause, to make them more malleable in the light of new conditions and circumstances.
 
Let us now examine our Constitution in the context of these standards.
 
I have been known to, well, criticize it as overbroad.
 
Why is it overbroad? Its Article XVI contains provisions on the advertising industry, which I maintain, respectfully, could have been, or should have been, covered simply by laws. This article appears to be, well, misplaced in a Constitution.
 
Section 24 of Article II declares that “the state recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.” Is this announcement that our country is the text capital of world really necessary?
 
Even now, we begin to see that, as my father described it in his classrooms, our Constitution, like me, is quite “talkative.”
 
Its Preamble declares -
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this constitution.
Did you notice? The word “love” is there.
I did research on this. I reviewed the records of that Constitutional Commission and discovered that, among all of its delegates, only one offered an objection against the inclusion of the word “love” in our Preamble. It was the late Commissioner Lino Brocka. His reason, and I quote: “it’s yucky.”
 
He was, maybe, right?
 
Please do not misunderstand me. I am all for love.  But, perhaps, the concept, or this word, would be more appropriate in a romantic novel, and not in a Constitution?
 
The only other mention of “love” in our constitution is found in Section 3 (2) of Article XIV, which speaks of “love of humanity.” This is nice, I think.
 
It is definitely not brief. Its Article II alone has 28 sections. It has so many, perhaps, too many, provisions on social justice. One provision on this most important concept would have sufficed. Section 10 of Article II provides that the “State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.” This should or could have been enough.
 
And yes, many of its provisions, I have never fully understood what they mean. Nothing definite or clear about them. Let me cite just three of them this morning.
Section 16 of its Article II provides that “the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” Section 17 of the same article declares that the State shall, among others, “promote total human liberation and development.”
To this day, I have never fully understood the phrases “in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” and “total human liberation and development.”
Section 10 of its Article XVI deserves special mention.
 
“The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.”
 
I, again, echo my father's words: “excuse me?”
 
But let me now hop over to the other side.
 
Love.
 
There is this tale told in a decision of the Supreme Court of a high school teacher who fell in love with her student and was, because of that love, which was considered immoral, dismissed. Happily for her, her appeal found its way to the desk of a most romantic jurist, a former teacher of mine, Justice Florenz D. Regalado. He exonerated her. Paraphrasing the words of the mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, he wrote:
         
“If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.” (Chua-Qua v. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 117)
 
So, you see, ladies and gentlemen, love, as embodied in our Preamble, was actually invoked to achieve justice. And so, we can say that it is good that it is there.
 
Section 16 of its Article II, which speaks of a “balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” was likewise relied upon by our Supreme Court when it allowed an environmental suit to be filed by even children yet unborn, and also when it promulgated special rules on environmental cases. These, again, show that this pronouncement in our Constitution is also a good thing.
 
In similar vein, I suppose there should be nothing innately wrong in calling upon the State to “promote total human liberation and development,” whatever this may mean. I have thought about it. Total human liberation and development, which can probably be achieved only in death, how can that be bad?
 
Section 24 of Article II, where “the State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building” and Section 10 of its Article XVI, which I refer to as the “excuse me?” provision in our Constitution, they have actually been invoked by our Supreme Court in directing compliance with the all-important must-carry rule in Commercial Law. Again, these provisions have become actually good things.
 
So, I ask again, is the 1987 Constitution a good constitution?
 
Let us examine it further, this time, in the context of what are considered to be essential parts of any good constitution, to wit, the constitution of government, the constitution of liberty and the constitution of sovereignty.
 
Our Constitution has all three.
 
Its constitution of government consists of a series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate. All of these are provided for in Articles VI to XI of our present Charter.
 
Our time is limited, so allow me to focus only on just two of the principal features of this segment of our Constitution – the principle of separation of powers and local autonomy.
 
It establishes basically three branches of government. The President, our chief executive, our head of state and head of government, implements the laws made by our Congress. He joins in the process of legislation but, alone, cannot legislate. Our Supreme Court, our Judiciary, in turn, interprets these laws.
 
I offer an analogy, although I am uncertain if it wold be apt. In the context of my family, it is my wife who makes the rules. With all obeisance and in absolute obedience, I implement them. My daughters, they judge me; they always judge me.
 
In other words, this segment of our Constitution features the principle of separation of powers, which is all-important, and most essential, in any republican and democratic regime.
 
The purpose is obvious: there is danger if all three powers of government were to be merged in but one entity or individual or, worse, in a monster. Such a confluence of all three powers of government in but a single person would most certainly result in tyranny.
Accordingly, it has been declared that the doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. According to Justice Laurel, it is intended to secure action, forestall over-action, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency. (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. PSC, 40 O.G., 8^th supp. 67)
This cardinal postulate explains that the three branches must discharge their respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by the Constitution. Under the principle of separation of powers, neither the Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary may encroach on fields allocated to the other branches of government. (Philippine Coconut Federation, Inc. v. Republic, 600 SCRA 102)
It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said that “the letter of the constitution wisely declared a separation but the impulse of common purpose declares a union.” 
This is the reason why this doctrine is accompanied in our Constitution by provisions which make for a blending of powers, where we see our co-equal and independent branches of government working together for the promotion of the general welfare, of the common good.
Thus, bills become laws only after presidential scrutiny and approval. Certain appointments of the President are required to be subjected to similar prior scrutiny by either the Commission on Appointments or the Judicial and Bar Council. His treaties or international agreements can become effective only upon prior concurrence of the Senate, and his decrees of amnesty, under the Constitution, can be effective only upon prior concurrence of our Congress. These are but a few examples of how these branches of our government are made to “work together” under our Constitution.
With it comes as well the equally important principle of checks and balances, under which one branch may prevent excesses or encroachments by the others.
Thus, bills may be vetoed by the President. This veto may, in turn, be rejected by the Congress with what is referred to as its overriding vote. Pardons may be granted by the President for purposes of setting aside determinations of our Judiciary in criminal cases. The Congress may impeach and eventually remove high public officials. The Commission on Elections may not deputize law enforcement agencies without the concurrence of the President. In turn, the President may not pardon election offenses without the prior favorable recommendation of the COMELEC.
These measures in our Constitution are all intended to, I repeat, “secure action, forestall over-action, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency.”
Of course, all of these principles, while all good, can be effective, can work properly, only if the men called upon to implement them were to respect them. After all, their inclusion in our Constitution cannot per se prevent collusions among selfish men who man our different branches of government who pursue selfish purposes for purely selfish ends.
The executive must be strong, but the Congress must have a mind of its own and not be a mere rubber stamp; and our Judiciary, it must, always, be independent. Our judges, to paraphrase Lord Coke, must always and only do what becomes them as judges.
If these were not so, if only the President were strong, and our Congress and our Judiciary were to be subservient to him, then our Republic is lost.
 An equally important feature of our Charter's constitution of government would be the provisions on, to paraphrase Jefferson, our little republics, our local governments, which comprise our greater Republic. As little republics, they all essentially possess, through valid delegation from our Congress, the police power, the power of eminent domain and, consistent with specific provisions of our Constitution, the power of taxation.
Our Constitution guarantees their autonomy, which would importantly include their right to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state, consistent with their constitutional right to internal self-determination. In the case of The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (568 SCRA 402), our Supreme Court made a significant pronouncement. “The people's right to self-determination should not, however, be understood as extending to a unilateral right of secession.”
This local autonomy is provided for in Section 25 of Article II and in Section 2 of Article X of our Constitution.
This is sought to be achieved under our Charter through basically this process known as decentralization, which, as explained in Mangune v. Ermita, a 2016 decision of our Supreme Court, refers to the devolution of national administration, not power, to local governments. This would involve the transfer of powers, responsibilities, and resources for the performance of certain functions from the central government to these local government units. This transfer of these powers has been provided for under, among other laws, the Local Government Code.
  It is important to note that, under Sections 4 and 16 of Article X of our Constitution, the President exercises only the power of general supervision, and not control, over all local governments, including autonomous regional governments, thereby further strengthening their autonomy.
  In addition, Veloso v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 193677, September 6, 2011), among other cases, tells us that local governments enjoy as well fiscal autonomy, although like all else in government, they are subject to the constitutional audit jurisdiction of our Commission on Audit. This is so, as it is provided for in our Constitution, regardless of whatever may be arrogantly declared by any president.
  To bolster their fiscal autonomy, Section 5 of Article X provides that “each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.” Both the Local Government Code and the Real Property Tax Code confer upon local governments this power “to create its own sources of revenue.”
Section 6 of Article X entitles them to “have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.” This “just share” was, only recently, in the case of Mandanas v. Ochoa (G.R. No.  199802, July 3, 2018), interpreted by our Supreme Court to refer to all national taxes, including, for example, customs duties, and not just national internal revenue taxes.
Finally, under Section 7 of article X, all local government units are “entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.”
We can see from all of the foregoing that, as pronounced by our Supreme Court –
 
“The autonomy of the LGUs as thereby ensured does not contemplate the fragmentation of the Philippines into a collection of mini-states, or the creation of imperium in imperio. The grant of autonomy simply means that Congress will allow the LGUs to perform certain functions and exercise certain powers in order not for them to be overly dependent on the national government subject to the limitations that the 1987 Constitution or Congress may impose. Local autonomy recognizes the wholeness of the Philippine society in its ethno-linguistic, cultural, and even religious diversities.”
These are among the reasons why I have never liked this concept known as federalism, which, for reasons I truly cannot understand, is being pushed by this administration.
I have read somewhere that “federalism, in general usage, describes a method of political organization in which two levels of government have constitutional power to legislate and govern; one level governs with respect to the country as a whole, the other with respect to one of the provinces or states that make up the federation.”  Theoretically, under this system, each state would have its own legislature, which would be essentially independent of the national bicameral or unicameral congress; and its own judicial system which, again, would essentially be autonomous in relation to the national judiciary. 
 
Many sectors in our society view this scheme as pure rubbish, for being both expensive and impractical, apart from being a clear sign of immaturity and a lack of political imagination. I, respectfully, agree. 
 
This federalism, and I again quote, it “is a mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity.”
 
The key word here, for me, is unites.  But, as our Supreme Court has explained, our country has no “mini-states” to unite. We are not a divided nation, with sovereign components which require unification.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, there is always division in any democracy; I have always maintained there should be unity only in love of country.
 
But we are not, in the context of federalism as a concept, a divided nation. We are not comprised of mini-states which require unification to make “a perfect union.” Our Constitution already provides for this union, and as well the rules that are supposed to govern this union.
 
This federalism of this president, it will divide us. It will destroy our Republic. It is, in other words, not good.
 
The autonomy of our LGUs is already assured in our Constitution. So our Constitution is not the problem here. Rather, the problem lies in the character of the men we elect to both high and low public offices.
 
I have another, a selfish reason, for rejecting this foolishness. If our Constitution were to be revised, I would need to revise all of my books. I trust you will understand that, because of my edad, this would be most difficult for me.
 
There are so many details pertinent to these two concepts, or components of our constitution of government. I regret that I cannot compress 45 hours of discussions on the features and also the flaws of our constitution of government in only 45 minutes.
 
So let us now move on to the next essential part of our Constitution, its constitution of liberty, which consists of a series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. These are found in Articles II, III, IV, V and XII of our Constitution.
 
These fundamental powers of the State, exercised by the government, they are good things, these police power, power of eminent domain and power of taxation. But they can, in the hands of terrible men, and if exercised arbitrarily, be terrible powers.
 
Hence, the need for the aforesaid “prescriptions” and “proscriptions” which would not only enhance our basic civil and political rights as citizens but also, more importantly, impose limitations on the exercise by government of its powers “as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.”
 
These are found mainly in our Bill of Rights, which, among others, holds sacred our right to due process of law, both with respect to the requirement as to the intrinsic validity of our laws, or substantive due process, defined simply by Chief Justice Fernando as “responsiveness to the supremacy of reason; obedience to the dictates of justice,” or by Justice Frankfurter as nothing more and nothing less than “the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play;” as well as to our basic right to be notified and be heard, our right to procedural due process, or “the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”
 
The same Bill of Rights provides for all of us equal protection under our laws, which should allow, if needed, only for discrimination based on substantial distinctions. It affords to all of us our most important right against unlawful arrests and unreasonable searches and seizure, our sacred right to privacy, rights guaranteed for all accused, and many others.
 
Most important for me though would be its provisions on our freedom of expression, which is usually the first of all freedoms that is sought to be supressed by any repressive regime which may be intolerant of any criticism, which destroys all those who would dare dissent against it, which is selfish in its purposes, and which is, simply, afraid of the truth.
 
          Let us remember in this regard the words of Justice Holmes when he spoke of the fundamental philosophy underlying our freedom of speech.
 
“When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe, more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct, that the ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” (Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 610)
 
          Indeed, our speech should be our only sword, and our ballots, our only bullets, when we do battle against all unreasonable men who would curtail our freedoms.
 
Our Constitution has all of these prescriptions, and as well proscriptions against the State in its exercise of its powers through government. These are good things. And all we really or truly need are men and women in government who understand these rights of ours, and who shall respect these rights of ours, because it is their duty to so understand and respect them.
 
As to our Charter's constitution of sovereignty, which consists of the provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about, this is found in its Article XVII.
 
Any effort to change our Constitution should entail a two-step process – the making of the proposal, and the approval of the proposal through this process known as ratification, which is required to be done in a plebiscite.
 
There are three methods prescribed in Article XVII for the making of proposals to change our Constitution.
 
The first is through the Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, and in the performance of a non-legislative power. It can propose, with a vote of three-fourths of all of its members, either an amendment or a revision of our constitution.
 
It shall only be an amendment if it were to be only a piecemeal or minor change, a minor change, as when the retirement age of judges is changed from 70 to younger or older. On the other hand, it would be a revision if the form, the structure, the system of government were to be altered.
 
If it feels, as it ought to, that it would not have the competence to do either, or perhaps to propose a revision, the Congress can establish or convoke, with a vote of two-thirds of all of its members, a constitutional convention, to which can be entrusted the task of proposing the constitutional change, which can be either a simple amendment, though this would evidently be impractical, or, properly, a revision. This is the second method for the making of the proposal.
 
The third method is entrusted under the Constitution to us, the people, through the process known as initiative. But we are limited under Section 2 of Article 17 to proposing only amendments to our Constitution.
 
I should mention this at this point.
 
These are my reasons for never having even bothered to study the proposal of this president's so-called consultative commission for this shift to federalism. Any proposal to revise our Constitution, any effort toward this, must emanate from the Congress. The president may, of course, suggest. But he has no business under our Constitution making any proposal.
 
This consultative commission was established by this president on the basis of an executive order which he promulgated in December 2016, or shortly after he became president, obviously as a miserable attempt to fulfill yet another of his many absurd, and still unfulfilled, campaign promises.
 
By definition under our Administrative Code, this ordinance power of the president can be exercised only for purposes of implementing laws or the Constitution. There was never any law which authorized this. The Congress never passed even any resolution asking the president to help it on this. There obviously is no provision in our Constitution which can be invoked to justify its issuance. That executive order can therefore actually be considered unconstitutional. And this is because any proposal to revise our Constitution must be done at the instance, and only upon the initiative, of our Congress.
 
So, see what has happened.
 
There are now indications that our Congress will totally disregard, or has totally disregarded, this proposal made by this consultative commission. You know what? It has the absolute right and power to do so, to disregard it.
 
There have been reports to the effect that the handsome Chief Justice Puno is now angry. We should all be concerned when handsome jurists get angry. But this would not matter at all to the members of the House of Representatives, where, I understand, this matter is now being discussed. He has, after all, no right to be angry. His consultative commission never had the power or the right to make any proposal to revise our Constitution in the first place.
 
I stress that this is but my humble view on this matter. I may, of course, be mistaken on this. I am, after all, only a teacher.
 
At any rate, once the required votes for the proposals are mustered, the same are required to be submitted to the people for their ratification or approval in a plebiscite, which must be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days from the approval of the proposals.
 
It is important to note here that Sections 1 and 2 of Article XVII do not indicate that the votes for the making by the Congress of the proposal or for its convoking a constitutional convention must be done by the two houses separately. It is best understood that the separate vote is more difficult to muster, as opposed to a joint vote of both houses of the Congress.
 
This is or can be a problem. If they persist in their present nonsense called federalism, well, this would be a good opportunity for our Supreme Court to interpret these provisions in our Constitution. We shall see how this story will unfold.
 
I maintain that the correct, the better view here is that these votes required under the Constitution must be made by both houses acting separately. The reason is simple. If bills were approved with separate, and not joint, votes, then the more important, the constituent, task of proposing changes to our constitution should merit no less than a separate vote as well.
 
But then, as I said only a while ago, I am just a teacher. It is for the Supreme Court to finally decide on this.
 
So, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the ingredients, the factors which can help us answer the question I asked earlier.
 
Is the 1987 Constitution a good Constitution?
 
It is, to repeat, an imperfect document.  But I maintain, respectfully, that it is a good document. It is a good Constitution.
 
It provides for order in our society under reasonable terms, acceptable conditions, tolerable requirements.
 
It is, for certain, not a panacea which can address all of our society's ills. I do not believe this was ever the intention from the beginning. But it does provide our nation with every opportunity, and with good processes, for addressing all things wrong in our Republic.
 
I have written this before.
 
At the very least, this Constitution ensures that our democracy continues to fare well in our nation. This is evidenced by the continuing clashes between authority and liberty, with, as ever, the Supreme Court, “the conscience of the government,” acting as the final arbiter, and with only the Constitution, “the true guardian of the full flowering of freedom,” standing as its firm foundation.
 
The experiments on the extents of the powers of government and our liberties, as founded in our Constitution, they persist.
         
I am with my father, Justice Isagani A. Cruz, on this. I do not suggest here “that there is an eternal conflict between authority and liberty. There is none in fact. The democratic society is based upon the need for the establishment of order as an imperative for the observance of rights. Authority and liberty must co-exist; there must be an equilibrium between them. But while order must first be established before rights can be enjoyed, the highest function of authority is to exalt liberty.”
         
Our 1987 Constitution carries this command upon our authorities.
 
There can be no true order in our country if those who govern do not care to comply with, to obey these commands, and only because they think they are popular.
 
The problem, in my view, ladies in gentlemen, has never been our Constitution, which I maintain is a good Constitution.
 
The real problem may be this – we keep electing the wrong men and women to public office. Many of them do not understand and therefore do not care about what our Constitution is all about, what it is and what it stands for. In other words, the problem is, or may be – us.
 
We are not truly free if each of us has to constantly assert his rights, provided for in our Constitution, before or against these men and women who do not care for them, and care only for themselves, and their power, and, again, only because they think they are popular.
 
Our Constitution is in place precisely to prevent these men who think themselves popular, these “pretenders to illegitimate power,” from “usurping the majesty of the law.”
 
It is our duty therefore as citizens to make sure that they are prevented from doing this, or from continuing to do this.
 
To achieve this, each of us, I most respectfully submit, must try and understand our Constitution, must acknowledge that it is there to provide order and as a guarantee for our proper exercise of all of our rights, and of our freedom.
 
We must embrace the Constitution, our Constitution, for it is, as I said when I began, our fundamental law.
 
So, dear friends, do join me. Let us all embrace our Constitution. So we may all better exalt our liberty.
 
Thank you.