Under a continuity of subservience:
there's no social change in that "charter change"
By Kat Ulrike
It is quite easier to blame the constitution for all the woes the country has faced. Be it political dynasties, corruption, to that of "economic provisions", the constitution as what critics claimed, is worth blaming and thus needs amendment if not outright replacement.
However, the problem is more than just the constitution itself- but systemic. The issue is itself centuries-past, and it has passed fundamental laws and constitutions, and yet it stays the same: benefiting landlords, big business, corrupt bureaucrats, political dynasties, foreign dominators that for those concerned been sought as the real problems.
To blame the 1987 constitution without even thinking the problem as systemic may sound easier to conclude that social change would happen if fundamental laws are to be amended. But reality becomes otherwise as changing it has less fo do with resolving social problems and more to do with aggravating it- especially with those who advocate charter change have more to do with their entrenched interests, alongside the willingness to opon further in the guise of "economic development".
But nevertheless, interest seekers, local and foreign alike have long kept the Philippines poor and underdeveloped. They have to feign patriotism especially "national survival" to justify their neoliberal/globalist intent, they would even blame the "oligarchs" and yet kowtows to foreign banksters for "investment", if one may ask, since they find the laws not enough be it the Jomes Act or the current 1987 constitution; but did it truly benefit the people? Maybe, maybe not.
Perhaps, no matter they change the fundamental law of the land, opened the country to foreigners, yet seeing the same order benefits from it then it's crystal clear bullshit. Nothing's wrong in foreign direct investment tho, but does the country need to rely on so much? Singapore is an exception being an island city-state with its existing port and financial center; China? Deng's opening up is itself a "measure" that's "for a time being" as part of building socialism. However, the needed for foreign investment, according to neoliberals and globalists seemingly taking it to the extreme as that of willingness to surrender sovereignty to banksters and profiteers as that of corrupt bureaucrats and despotic landlords; oligarchs, be it local or foreign alike, will always bleed the people dry in the name of "development". If they afforded to claim they're as patriotic, or even nationalistic as that of the sovereignists, then why the willingness to surrender sovereignty to the whims of the global market? Again, nothing's wrong in accommodating foreign direct investment, but to remove labour and environmental regulations, the right to fair wages, enforced austerity with attempts to cut government spending on social programs? It is bullshit! That neoliberalism which primarily concerned with markets over people has run concurrent with a rise in inequality in both wealth and income, what more the presence of monopolies, which increase the profits of corporations at the expense of benefits to consumers. Hence, the angst against the oligarchs may sound reasonable but to support policies that also benefited the oligarch? Uphold or eveb reform neoliberal capitalism? Again, it is bullshit!
In short, no constitution, no type of government, and no coterie of sorts will really "change the nation" as long as the sociopolitical order stays the same. The masses demand social justice, industrialization, land reform, respect for fundamental human rights, national freedom, and real democracy instead of continuing in a state of reliance, subordination, and oppression. The people will not stand for the ruling class in Congress coming up with self-serving proposals to amend the Constitution.