Why Leni as President and Kiko as VP Won't Change the 1987 Constitution—But Could still Affect their Reputations
If Leni Robredo and Kiko Pangilinan had won the 2022 Philippine presidential election as against Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. (BBM) and Sara Duterte, they would, at best, have operated their governance through a principle of reform, transparency, and continuity rather than a 'rude shock' character.
One thing they wouldn't touch is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. For all their intentions to uphold democratic values and maintain stability, the same Constitution could ironically become a factor that challenges and potentially damages their political reputations. Here's why the 1987 Constitution could become a double-edged sword for Leni and Kiko.
1. The 1987 Constitution as Symbol of Stability and Democracy.
It is in this regard that the Constitution of 1987 is a product of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., the father of BBM, authoritarian rule, and it was drafted under Corazon Aquino to safeguard from the abuses felt during Martial Law. Indeed, Bill of Rights, term limits, and separation of powers are all there to ensure no leader could establish himself to be a permanent force or that government apparatuses be for personal gain.
For personalities like Leni Robredo and Kiko Pangilinan, the 1987 Constitution would be an operative norm to act according to. They would subscribe to it as a sign of democratic resilience, allowing the people of the Philippines to feel comfortable with knowing that their government respects civil liberties and is not going to abuse its powers.
It is, therefore not surprising that they do not look at changing it lightly; it would be seen as challenging the very values they represent.
2. Public Perception and the "Anti-Charter Change" Stand
Both Leni and Kiko have been loud in opposition to charter change, also known as Cha-Cha, which many believe would open the door to corrupt officials extending their term or even changing provisions protecting citizens' rights. Rigidity of the 1987 Constitution in certain areas is said to be an antidote to political self-interest; the public does not really trust leaders who push for changes. Had Leni and Kiko tried to change the Constitution, they may have been accused of wanting to do so for certain reasons, even if this was not their intention. They would probably stay firm on an "anti-charter change" stance so as not to invite those controversies and lose the trust of their supporters. Their core constituency, which includes progresses, pro-democracy forces, and human rights groups, might view any effort to change the Constitution as a sellout to the values they espouse.
3. The 1987 Constitution as a Restraining Factor in Government Operations
The main drawback of the 1987 Constitution is its age and some outdated provisions that do not well serve the present needs and challenges of the Philippines. While it has ensured the safeguarding of democracy, it also creates huge difficulties in economic reform, foreign investment restrictions, and local governance structures. As progressive leaders, Leni and Kiko might be frustrated that constitutional limitations will restrain them from implementing substantial reforms. If they wanted to open certain industries to more foreign investments to spur economic growth or to adjust social welfare programs, they would be limited by restrictions that could break or weaken efforts.
It was in such an event, the inflexibility within the Constitution was very dangerous to their rule to seem ineffective or unable to do desirable change.
4. Economic and social issues that need reform
Leni Robredo has been a consistent advocate for inclusive economic growth, a respite from poverty, and social welfare programs. Still, other experts say that several provisions on foreign investment, tenurial rights, and the role of the state in the economy may contradict efforts to achieve these ends in the 1987 Constitution. She would not want to tinker with the Constitution, but the lack of flexibility might mean stalled reforms, slower economic growth, and public discontent.
For instance, the Constitution's strict limits on foreign ownership and investment protect Filipino interests but also repel much-needed foreign capital that could spur growth, create jobs, and modernize infrastructure. With economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and global inflation, the pressure on any administration to boost growth is immense.
In that case, any constitutional barrier which would hinder their administration in generating economic development would haunt and hurt their reputation both for the believers and skeptics.
5. Constitutional Checks on National Security and Crimes Issues
Another area that may affect them in their administration is restrictions from the Constitution on issues related to national security measures. For instance, the constitutional provisions of separation of power and other provisions may provide some constraints on quick moves on pressing issues such as illegal drugs, crime, and insurgency.
In the government of Leni-Kiko, the approach may likely include community-based programs and more human rights approach in resolving crime issues rather than in an aggressive way under the Duterte administration. Still, whenever the crime rates continue or the security issue deteriorates, the critics will view the unwillingness of such an administration to think of constitutional reforms especially with the aspect of national security, as a weakness. If an administration appears lenient or constricted by archaic laws, its reputation among the populace desiring decisive actions could suffer. Constitutional restraints could not impose measures as aggressive as desired by public perception, which may have given Leni and Kiko an image of inefficiency or "soft" when it comes to criminals that will affect their political positioning.
6. The Risk of Stagnation and the Blame Game
One of the most significant risks that would be posed by not amending the Constitution is political stagnation. In the system, it takes a long time to process government matters and, therefore, may take years to implement policies because of bureaucratic red tape and structural inefficiencies. With Leni and Kiko at the helm, limitations of the 1987 Constitution may prevent them from making swift changes in place, and their administration will be branded as "too slow" or "ineffective." Opponents and critics will most likely play on such issues by claiming that the administration is not living up to its promise or really making much headway. Ironically, as Leni and Kiko would prefer to leave the Constitution as a matter of respect for democratic processes, they would still be faulted for the same lapses of the system that would remain unchanged. This would make the public lose confidence in the government, especially when they start comparing their performance unfavorably with other leaders who might take more aggressive, albeit less democratic, actions.
7. The Difficulty of Dealing with Contemporary Issues without Contemporary Instruments
Issues such as climate change, digital governance, international diplomacy, and cybercrime in the globalized world of the 21st century require modern tools and adaptable systems. Thus, the 1987 Constitution, although effective in its time, lacks specific frameworks to address these modern challenges comprehensively. If they are to be constant only according to the Constitution like this, then Leni and Kiko will indeed ally with the more advanced age groups, and therefore this may constrain them only for fewer ways to respond based on new issues. Thought impossibility of handling these concerns of the moment armed only with antiquated arsenals only fuels more riots to further scrutinize. Its image, however, was bruised when trying to overcome the current challenges in such an archaic system, while its values and intentions were aligned with what best served the public. Conclusion: A Double-Edged Sword of Defending Democratic Values In a way, while Leni Robredo and Kiko Pangilinan will probably be for the 1987 Constitution in showing respect for democracy and in commitment to transparency, it is ironic that the limitation of the Constitution will be the frustration and damage to their reputations. In not being able to advocate for constitutional amendments, they will remain in the good books of those who fear Cha-Cha, but they'll also be perceived as weak leaders held captive by the old system. The paradox here is that even though Leni and Kiko's adherence to the 1987 Constitution would demonstrate their commitment to democratic values, it could also set them up for criticism and potential political damage. In today's rapidly evolving world, staying true to the Constitution might uphold democratic integrity but hinder the ability to enact meaningful, timely changes. This would pose a tricky dilemma for Leni and Kiko between respect for the democratic foundation in the nation and responsiveness to the demands of modern Filipino society.
