Within sixty (60) days from the date of this Proclamation, a Commission shall be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution. The Commission shall be composed of not less than thirty (30) nor more than fifty (50) natural born citizens of the Philippines of recognized probity, known for their independence, nationalism and patriotism. They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors of society. (Article V, Section I).

There were criticisms of President Aquino for her issuance of the afore-cited Proclamation but the overwhelming sentiment was favorable, the people realizing that through such Proclamation, the President had effectively rendered short the period of exercise of her then vast (revolutionary) power – both executive as well as legislative, truly a manifestation of her unselfish concern and genuine love for country and people, at a time when she could have sought to prolong herself in power. Instead, she opted to appoint, after due and deliberate consultations with representatives of various sectors of our society, fifty members. Two declined to be appointed. Among those appointed were former government officials (including former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention), Justices, Members from media and the arts, labor leaders, religious personalities of diverse denominations, school officials and other educators, lawyers – human rights as well as corporate, militants as well as other civic leaders and an army general, among others. Jose Luis Martin C. Gaston, then a law student at the University of the Philippines was the youngest member at 22. Oldest perhaps was Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, born in 1903.

The Commission’s inaugural session was opened by then Vice President Salvador H. Laurel. The Commission had both elective and appointive officers. Most distinguished of the elective officers was former Supreme Court Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma who was chosen unanimously by the body. During the nomination speech, it was said that she was "a bar topnotcher, one who has ably occupied responsible positions in three departments of our government – the executive, the legislative and the judicial, one who had the distinction of having been appointed the first woman prosecutor, the first woman district judge and the first woman justice of the Supreme Court in this country.’’ Elected Vice President was former Senator Ambrosio B. Padilla. Upon nomination by Commissioner Ricardo Romulo, Commissioner Napoleon G. Rama was elected Floor Leader. Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto and Jose D. Calderon were elected Assistant Floor Leaders. Also elected, outside the membership of the ConCom were Atty. Flerida Ruth P. Romero (who later became Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) as Secretary-General and Roberto M. San Andres as Sergeant at Arms. The chairpersons of the various ConCom Committees were appointed by President Palma.

Three of the appointed Commissioners represented the Marcos era. They were Blas Ople (who subsequently served with distinction as Senator and Secretary of Foreign Affairs); Regalado Maambong (an incumbent Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals); and Atty. Rustico de los Reyes (a member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention who has now immigrated to the United States).

132 days after the ConCom held its first session, the draft Constitution was finalized. It was presented to President Aquino, in a ceremony held in Malacañang. The ConCom’s final session was held on October 15, 1986. The body failed to meet the three months deadline set, which would have ended on September 30.

In compliance with the mandate of Article V of the Provisional Constitution, the ConCom conducted public hearings "to insure that the people will have adequate participation in the formulation of the new Constitution.’’ Hearings were held not only within the premises of the ConCom, but elsewhere such as the Congress Building in Manila as well as in several provinces and cities in Luzon. Additionally, the ConCom welcomed and received letters from the citizens. In the ConCom’s opening session, for example, there were over forty communications, including one from the National Council of Churches which registered objection to a provision that mandatorily allow the teaching of religion in the public elementary and high school during regular class hours and communication seeking to include in the New Constitution a provision which would "oblige the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.’’ Numerous communications continued to be received during the succeeding sessions until the session held on October 8, one week before the final session.

From October 16, 1986, (the day after the draft Constitution was submitted by ConCom President Cecilia Muñoz Palma to the President of the Philippines, Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino, in the presence of the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission at Malacañang) and for more than 100 days thereafter up to January 31, 1987, the members of the Constitutional Commission conducted an education and information campaign nationwide to explain to the people the various provisions of the draft constitution with emphasis on the new ones. Such effort of course was not all that was done to properly and adequately inform the electorate of the content of the draft Constitution to enable them to make intelligent appraisal in reaching a decision whether to vote for or against its ratification. All forms of communication were availed of – T.V., radio, print including periodicals and magazines and other similar publications as well as materials published by the Commission itself which included among others copies of the proposed constitution in English and in Filipino, a Primer as well as materials on the draft constitution in comic magazine form.

A campaign and education effort was conducted by the Commissioners who were assigned particular areas from Laoag in the north to Basilan in the south. They attended open-air rallies, public forums in government offices, schools and auditoriums and convention/barangay halls as well as in private houses where members of Homeowners Association, for example, were invited to attend.

A prayer was recited by a Commissioner (in alphabetical order) in each session of the ConCom. Justice Robert Concepcion’s ran thus:

Infuse in us a comprehension of the essence of a truly representative democracy which, founded upon a recognition of the extraordinary potentialities of the ordinary man, observes the majority rule but is characterized by its deep concern for the rights of the minority.

Among the various issues debated during the ConCom’s deliberation was that concerning the form of government that should be established in our country – presidential or parliamentary. This issue was initially taken up during the meetings of the Legislative Committee which had 15 members with Commissioner (later Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr. serving as Chairman and Commissioner (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Adolfo S. Ascuna as Vice-Chairman. After due discussion of the issue, voting followed. The Presidential form of government prevailed. It garnered one vote more than did the Parliamentary. Subsequently, the issue and the resultant vote thereon was referred by the Committee to the ConCom in plenary. After deliberation, vote on the issue was taken. Again, the Presidential form of government won by the same number of vote – one. As noted by the Commissioner themselves, each form has its own characteristics. Among those of the Presidential are: (1) There is separation of powers between the executive and legislative departments, conducive to more effective check and balance between the two and greater stability of government; (2) There are fixed terms of office of both the executive and the Members of the legislative; (3) Removal of the President may only be effected through impeachment pursuant to the provisions of Article XII.

A major characteristics of a parliamentary form of government is that therein the executive power is exercised by the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister which in effect constitutes a committee of the legislative body. Second, the executive and the members of the cabinet hold office at the pleasure of the legislative body. They have no fixed term. Third, removal terminates the tenure of the cabinet by a no-confidence vote when there is fundamental disagreement between the executive and the legislative. The point of disagreement would then be thrown to the people. The Prime Minister could also dissolve Parliament and refer the issue to the people.

For the first time, a separate article on education had been included in the Constitution. In the proposal for inclusion, the following assertions were made:

I cannot understand… why a state function as vital and as extensive as education and involving at present almost 15 million students, about 330 faculty members, not including non-teaching, non-academic and support staff personnel should be relegated to relative obscurity in a broadly described Article called "General Provisions.’’

In the 1935 Constitution… Article XIII entitled "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources’’ and Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution entitled "The National Economy and Patrimony of the Nation’’ deal in a large measure with natural resources. I will readily agree to the fact that natural resources are vital to the growth and development of our country. But… human resources are just as vital, if not more so, as natural resources.

The plight of our country’s poor has time and again been the focus of attention during the ConCom’s deliberation. Economist Bernardo Villegas had put it this way:

There is no question that economic development is the most immediate concern of the national government, considering the fact that 70 percent of our population is living below the poverty line, meaning, we are having a hard time putting body and soul together.

Relative to this, Fr. Bernas said that in this situation there could be no liberty for the poor who find themselves beholden to "padrinos’’ or patrons. Liberty for them would be more of an illusion rather then a reality.

Some features of the 1987 Constitutional include:

I. In Article VII, the executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines who possesses similar broad powers given to the Chief Executive under the 1935 Constitution. But conscious of the abuses perpetrated by the former President turned dictator, some of these powers have been curbed. As Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he may, when the public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. However, in order to exercise such powers there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and not just an imminent danger thereof. Although the President may exercise these powers on his own authority, Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension. Unless revoked, such suspension or proclamation shall be effective for a period not exceeding sixty days unless extended by Congress. Martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor does it automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

II. A variation in the membership of the House of Representatives was the inclusion of party-list representatives therein. According to Art. VI sec. 5(2):

For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

Commissioner Florangel Rosario Braid attempted to increase the period application of three generations after ratification to four consecutive terms. Her proposal however was turned down by the body.

III. The judiciary occupies a vital and indispensable part in our system of government. It has been variously referred to as the "ultimate guardian of the Constitution,’’ "the bulwark of democracy’’ and "the conscience of the government.’’ The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court which is admittedly the highest and final arbiter of legal questions, assumes judicial supremacy through the duty and authority of the courts to declare statutes (as well as acts of officials of the Executive Department) unconstitutional.

One of the salient inclusions in the Article on the Judicial Department in our fundamental law is the definition of judicial power as including the duty "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.’’ This duty has far-reaching implication. The Supreme Court cannot, like Pilate, wash its hands from its responsibility of reviewing acts of public officials and offices, as the Supreme Court had done during the Marcos administration, where vital issues that concerned civil liberties and human rights were summarily left unresolved on the ground that they were "political issues.’’

In the words of ConCom President Cecilia Muñoz Palma:

With this broad definition of judicial power therefore, our highest Tribunal can no longer evade adjudicating on the validity of executive or legislative action by claiming that the issue is a political question. (RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, Vol. V, p. 1010).

The following is an excerpt from the sponsorship speech delivered on October 12, 1986 in plenary session by the Chairman of the Sponsorship Committee of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:

Eighty seven years ago on January 21, 1899 the first Philippine Constitutional was promulgated. Three generations and a revolution later, the 1986 Constitutional Commission has drafted a new Constitution which, like the Malolos Constitution, reiterates our commitment to the principles that sovereignty resides in the people, that ours is a representative form of government, that individual rights shall remain inviolable.

A motion was then presented for the approval of the draft Constitution.

The response of the Members of the Commission was heart-warming. The above-cited motion was approved on second reading without objection.

On October 12, the draft Constitution was voted on by the Constitutonal Commissioners. Forty-four voted in favor while two voted against. There was no abstention. Commissioner Decoroso Rosales, who was critically ill, failed to cast his vote while another Commissioner, representing the arts, chose not to participate therein.

Hereunder are some of the explanations given by the Commissioners for their respective votes:

PRESIDENT PALMA –

For the first time, the Constitution devotes a separate Article on Family Rights thereby giving the recognition to the fact that the family is a basic, autonomous, social institution…

For the first time, the new Charter upholds the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception…

For the first time, there is a positive declaration that the State guarantees the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

(Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 945)

VICE PRESIDENT PADILLA –

Madam President, this 1986 Constitution, after its ratification by our sovereign people, shall be the fundamental law of the Republic of the Philippines as a democratic and republican State. It satisfies the basic Philosophy of a good Constitution.

(Id., p. 929)

COMMISSIONER RAMA –

The principal purpose of the Commission is to restore democracy slain by a repressive and rapacious regime, install a constitutional government, enshrine people power, recapture the pride and human dignity of the Filipino, rev up the engine of economic progress and institute political stability. (Id., p. 930)

COMMISSIONER DAVIDE (LATER CHIEF JUSTICE) –

Of course, this new Constitution is not perfect; there is no such thing as a perfect Constitution… It is my only hope that this will be loved by our people, and that what we have begun shall be pursued by the leadership and the new Congress.

(Id., p. 917)

COMMISSIONER AZCUNA (NOW SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE) –

But, in the final analysis, it is not the Constitution but the social forces behind the Constitution that will determine the shape of our destiny. We have firmly established a document but, at the same time, we have entrusted to others its final course.

(Id., p. 912)

COMMISSIONER ALONTO –

Bismi’llahir-Rahmanir-Rahim (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, Ever Merciful)

I am casting my vote in Thy Holy Name, O God, to firm my unstinted hope for Thy mercy to grant the Filipino people by this Constitution, "Ummatun yad’una ilal khair wa ya’muruna bil ma’aruf wa’yanhauna anil munkar,’’ a nation that invites to good, enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong.

(Id., p. 911)

REV. RIGOS -

Madam President, I vote yes with a prayer that the good Lord may use this Constitution as a channel of His grace and an instrument of His peace, and may it contribute to the healing of the nation and the building of a new world where love and justice reign.

(Id., p. 933)

The two dissenters explained their negative votes thus:

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ (whom we fondly called "Ka Senseng’’) -

A Constitution is supposed to be broad, brief and definite. Instead of being brief, our draft is too wordy. Instead of being broad, it has become too concerned with details. Instead of being definite, it suffers from vagueness and ambiguity. Justice Malcolm has wisely observe that any vagueness may lead to opposing interpretations that may cause incalculable harm and chaos to the nation.

I find this Constitution constrictingly legislative in charter… there are close to a hundred provisions that were left for Congress to promulgate.

(Id., pp. 934-935).

Parenthetically the ban-dynasty proviso turned out to be one of the casualties in that, in failing to specify and clearly prohibit dynastic rule, such prohibition was never realized.

COMMISSIONER TADEO -

Tingnan natin ang Article on National Economy and Patrimony. Napakaliwanag ng Kasaysayan ng bansa, ang naglubog sa kahirapan ay ang free trade mula pa noong 1909, bilang ang Pilipinas ay tagapagluwas ng hilaw na sangkap at tagabili ng yaring produkto.

Ngunit inilagay pa rin natin dito sa 1986 Constitution… Hindi na tayo naaalis sa pagka-alipin sa ating ekonomiya.

(Id., p. 939)

Relative to the reference of President Palma to the Constitution as being Pro-Life; Pro-Women and Pro-Family, the following Constitutional provisions may be cited:

PRO-LIFE PROVISIONS:

1. Right of the unborn (Art. II, Sec. 12)

2. Abolition of death penalty except for heinous crimes [Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)].

3. Nuclear weapons free provisions (Art. II, Sec. 8)

4. Protection of family rights (Art. XV).

PRO-WOMEN PROVISIONS:

1. Role of women; fundamental equality of women and men before the law (Art. II, Sec. 14).

2. Protection to working mothers (Art. XIII, Sec. 14).

PRO-FAMILY PROVISIONS:

1. The family (Art. XV).

2. Sanctity of the family (Art. II, Sec. 12).

Also, the following Pro-God provisions may be cited:

PRO-GOD PROVISIONS:

1. Preamble

2. Optional religious instruction [Art. XIV, Sec. 3 (3)].

3. Strengthening of ethical and spiritual values [Art. XIV, Sec. 3 (2)].

4. Dignity of every human person (Art. II, Sec. 11).

On Feb. 2, 1987, a plebiscite was held wherein the people overwhelmingly ratified the same.

In recent years there have been attempts to amend or revise the present Constitution. Some of the proponents were perhaps well-meaning but a good number had apparently selfish political motives. They wanted a form of government where it would be less expensive for them to campaign since they would only have to woo several hundred members of parliament rather than the voters in the entire country. This type of indirect voting by representatives of the people could be more easily manipulated by political leaders.

Last February, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales expressed opposition to the proposed charter change (or the ChaCha) saying that the move was "untimely and out of focus at the present. . . any development and progress in a country would not be accomplished through the change of the system but in a change of the people within the system.’’

For about 18 years, the 1987 Constitutional has remained unchanged. Will it be amended or revised? Only time and the people, the SOVEREIGN people, will tell.