YOU may be happy to hear that this newspaper has serious readers who want to keep the nationalistic torch burning. Last week, I wrote about my discussions with Atty. Alan Paguia regarding Article 86 and the "Additional Article" of the Malolos Constitution, during my daily radio program. We both agreed that it is imperative to review the Malolos Constitution, now that President Gloria Arroyo herself has signaled the start of the "great debate" on Charter change.
I received this e-mail from Mr. Jose Neil Fruto: "It is really interesting to know that the succeeding constitutions drafted did not include the two articles from the Malolos Constitution. In my opinion, the following reasons were the arguments used for the exclusion of the two articles: (1) The religious organizations/corporations did not want to give up their land holdings and must have used the separation of church and state as an argument to that point. The politicians would lose the support of the religious sector; (2) foreign supporters of the succeeding governments do not want the Philippines free from debt. They would lose a lot of influence on the Philippine situation and would lose their vantage point in Asia as the Philippines is the gateway to Asia."
Another reader, Mr. Ray Calingasan, sent his opinion: "You gave compelling arguments and I cannot but agree with you that the fate of the Philippines would have been different had Article 86 and the "Additional Article" of the Malolos Constitution – which you discussed with Atty. Alan Paguia, – been incorporated or at least considered when the 1935 Constitution was drafted. The "Additional Article" would have paved the way for a more equitable distribution of wealth, while Article 86 would have served as deterrent for succeeding administrations to mortgage the future of the country through foreign indebtedness."
Mr. Calingasan continued to say: "To this day, the Catholic Church still controls vast tracts of land, estates, and properties while many Filipinos remain landless. The government continues to borrow huge sums of money despite the trillion dollars of debt we already owe, because there is no constitutional provision that prevents or regulates it from doing so.
"Perhaps the American colonizers influenced the framers of the 1935 Constitution during the Commonwealth to totally ignore the principles and ideals of our founding fathers, in exchange for political patronage under their regime. The American colonizers knew for a fact that the ideals of our founding fathers ran counter to their policy of colonization. I hope the proponents of constitutional change will find the light by revisiting the Malolos Constitution when they draft the soon-to-be new constitution of the Philippines."
More than ever, it is now time to uncover the secrets of the past and learn from its valuable lessons. (gemma601@yahoo.com)
Listen to my radio program! DZRJ 810 a.m. Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m. Watch my TV show. RJTV on Mondays, 7 to 8 p.m. Sky 19, Home 19, Destiny 79, UHF 29, Sun 65.
