The two charters that succeeded the 1935 Constitution, whatever their merits, could hardly be considered as an expression of the popular will. While the 1973 Constitution was drafted by elected delegates, it was completed under Martial Law. The 1987 Constitution was drafted by delegates appointed by a "revolutionary" president. In both instances, the people’s voice was either not heard or surrendered to hysterical, if euphoric, circumstances.

The result, as a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, Isagani A. Cruz, who now writes a column, is a document that’s a masterpiece of prolixity and reads like "a manual for idiots," or words to that effect. While the laudable aim was to prevent "another Marcos," the political culture, as we know it, offers ample opportunities for the abuse of power.

One Voice fears the omission of provisions about the power of review of the Supreme Court and of term limits for elected officials. The first is certainly unthinkable while the second is arguable. There’s nothing particularly virtuous about term limits (except for the president), for it puts maturity and experience to pasture while effectively denying the people’s right to choose their leaders, although some of them perpetuate themselves in power by dubious means. Moreover, its companion, the anti-dynasty provision, has been a complete mockery.

There’s no doubt that the present Charter is flawed, but those who oppose changing it at this time have an equally undeniable point. The fault probably lies in our stars. Emerson may have exaggerated a bit when he said fools may contend about forms of government, but that government is best which governs least. Enough, however, that it truly governs.