To start with, I am not a lawyer…
I am just a lame call center agent often at the receiving of end of complaints.
I only had a strange introduction with the Constitution during our Chemical Jurisprudence subject. But it is not the “whole” thing and what was tackled by our Chemical Engineer-turned-lawyer professor dealt only with laws pertaining to chemistry. From licensure, to purchase of reagents to certifications etc. Well at least it defined why nowadays, sulfuric acid may no longer be bought without permit. And hydrochloric acid requires PDEA’s permission if purchased. Now it is clear why analytical labs will be a lucrative business even if economy is down trend because for as long as the basic commerce is not crippled, chemical analysis of raw materials and products analysis will continue. And of course some other chemical application beyond my scope was tackled in the Chemical Jurisprudence part of our Constitution. I will explain later why it is strange though.
And of course in our Taxation and Land Reform too, at least a tiny aspect of our Constitution was also tackled and it was there that I learned that it was Cecilia Munoz-Palma who drafted it in 1987, a year right after President Marcos’ was ousted.
When I was younger, and when time still permits me to pretend to read books in the Reference and sometimes Filipiniana section of our university library (back then in Adamson) I once forced myself to read the book I once took out of the shelf at random. It was the story of the Kings and Queens of Europe. I did it to keep me from sleeping because I was notorious at that. And I was already “attracting” the attention of our librarian.. Well, I happen to open the page when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, and well there were insurrections by the peasants and pressures from Nobles of lesser Royal blood but that eventually made King John to rethink his draconian (excuse me for the term, I just can’t think of another word that might express the meaning) policy.
What occurred to me is the importance of a written document in defining things. And for what history proved the written document humbled Kings as capricious as King John himself who in his birth right, could command the army. Mind you, it is BIRTH RIGHT and not just illusion of grandeur that some of our leaders has in maintaining their political dynasties. But the man was a royal, and that birth right he was born into, succumbed to the written law called Magna Carta.
Monkeying with the constitution has its consequence. What precipitated into a full scale insurrection that ended the Romanov’s clout is the continues attempt of the Tsar Nicolai to undermined the Duma’s efforts to form a representative government well defined by a Constitution. To make matter’s worst, apart from the Tsar’s charades to dissolve the Duma, ruling by decree and bribing its “top-heavy” membership to vote for the Tsar’s favour, the “landless peasants” felt the cause of the Bolsheviks. And no longer afraid of the machine guns at Kremlin, ended the Tsarist Regime in December 1917.
In a free market set up where we’re in right now, customer is king. In a call center set up where I am in and the rest of my tax paying buddies here, we are bound to reject the conventional ser-mam, mam-ser, gudafternun-ser-mam-ser-am notion of the customer because we are obliged to treat them on the level, no ass-wiping, no boot licking. No deference maybe tolerated unless you want the spoiled American customer to treat you like a whipping boy. And true, life could be very stressful at times. For once, we can’t just give them something like: “we will do our best,” because to customers, they don’t care if it is your best or not for as long as your give them answers to “resolve” there “issues” and if you we can’t do that, they will not treat like you are a breathing creature who can feel pain. AND THIS IS NOT A CALL CENTER STORY, You see, in this set up you are suppose to uphold the customer’s rights that is written down electronically or on the paper. It is not a sovereign law. It is but a corporate imposition of how things should be done, but there’s a limit
in that one too. Like, a condescending tone might be OK. Invectives and racial slur otherwise may not be tolerated, it is also “written.” It doesn’t matter if the customer is a fat “Mafioso” who might be rushed to a hospital for cardiac arrest triggered by the incident of phone hung up after uttering words like fuck or SOB…
Maybe we humans are just so organized in someway that the written law is “divine” and should be treated with respect and for as long as it does not hurt the interest of the many, there’s no reason to “edit” it.
When I was in college, America is the country I love to hate, just to be “in.” Well I must admit that peanut butter from the US tastes better than what we have here, and I have not known an American who punched me in the nose, but I had to “subscribe to the point of view” of my pals in back then, just so I will be accepted and be a “pogi.” It was just when I was on a call center hopping spree that I somehow got a glimpse of how America is aside from Hollywood produced movies, John Grisham books and Time Magazine. I remember a customer telling my supervisor to fire me because I can’t speak English. Later I learned that they could really do that because their consumerism is well defined by laws enforced by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Then I wish we have that as well so I can get my money’s worth. Then there is this customer complaining about 1 cent over charge. I almost debated with the customer. Imagine? 1 cent. And our service is relatively for up scale people. When I was in a travel account, a customer asked me for a break down of the statement he was provided. I computed it down to the taxes, and the taxes were even broken down some more. Then they must add up to the amount he was charged. Imagine how many taxes they have on that service alone? Aviation tax, federal, etc. It turned out to be worst and or better than I thought, it is a system of societies in harmony. And people could assert their rights. And to my opinion, it works for them. And if you even hint them that you find their assertion of such rights a bit too much, you’ll hear words like: “we are in America, we are not in some Banana Republic…”
Back then, there were senators of the republic who were openly attacking the Constitution for its defects. But I do not understand it; I am just stating here that we are in a habit of lashing out the Constitution time and again. Blaming it for what our country have become and. I am not saying that it did not appeal to me at all. Some of it were OK, like the Magna Carta for students rights back then is to my opinion, good. The Jury movement that the College of Law of my school is pushing is also good. But it is a matter of opinion; to me it is good because I am fond of trying new things. But maybe if I have a better understanding on things like this, it might not be as appealing as it is now. And how many Filipinos understands the Constitution, how many pretends to understand and how many could accept money to change it without fully understanding the repercussions.
Of course there will always be “slum dwellers” who could fill up the ranks of those rallying against the CON-ASS. We can easily embarrass them, we can highlight them on TV with their toothless grin and slimy faces just to get the point across that these people just went to the June 10 really in Ayala Ave for food. I just can’t understand why “that-asshole-journalist” didn’t interview attendees who passed UPCAT, those who read, those who can tell if the news is press release, or the journalist is espousing “enveloptal journalism.” But don’t these people who like me, buys noodles in the morning, a sachet of shampoo and whiles away time with their Network’s produces cheap telenovelas and fucking noon time shows, don’t we comprise the masses that increase their Network’s rating and gain more Ad money?
The Constitution was framed for the general public or the masses or each and every ignorant people like me who do not even appreciate its existence if you are not going to the Court, or in issues like CON-ass. Don’t I have resentment with our system. I have some questions but I don’t want to be a smart aleck. I heard about the CONCORD for example. And I was anticipating for it to be concluded because it promised fresh players from abroad to found a company here. That means more competitive salary, good benefits, less office politics, trainings, growth, and anything that a multinational companies could give. But for what I’ve understand and I’m maybe wrong, even the then Vice President GMA was for it. I also came across of the Federalization of the country. Again, to me it is appealing because the prospect that the resources of the province maybe allocated to it alone so that it’s development might become sustainable. Taxation of the clergy is also OK. Term limit lifting though at this time in a year is a big bullshit.
I, in my small world inside our campus back then shaped my own opinion behind the reason why the Constitution must be changed.
I worked for the official student’s publication back then. And story has it that I was terminated for four strong reasons whose “constitutionality” in terms of the Constitution and By Laws of the publication I question. My adversaries back then hastily revised the by laws so that my appeals would hold no ground. I rushed to look for a copy of the constitution since the Office of Student Affairs would adjudicate my case if I can present to them the old constitution where I base my appeals from. And to make matters worst, our publication was not policed by an Adviser then, and so the story goes that my case became “moot and academic” by the school’s legal advisers, since I can’t get my hands on the original Constitution and By- Laws.
But their new constitution survived until it ushered the pad locking of the publication for “some” reasons, that somehow vindicated my case against them.
I had in my college life a thinking that re-writing the book has its unscrupulous motives, until today, that’s how I think about it.
I don’t really know about the country as a whole, but to me, unifying the parliament into single house is a prelude to single party system. Adolf Hitler enjoyed the single party system long enough to slaughter millions of people for his whims. And in the end had to shoot his brains out when his generals didn’t even warn him about the advancing Russians into Berlin. But every nation is different, ours has a different set up. Maybe what is scary situation in one country might not be applicable to another. But the timing of CON-ass is something to be doubtful about. Why is it now? Why does it have to be before 2010 elections?
My first introduction to the Constitution was strange that there were still entries by the past President Marcos. I was young then but I thought the administration after that of Marcos’ hates the latter so much that I asked our professor in Chemical Jurisprudence why is it that the entries of Marcos was not deleted or changed? She said that it would only mean reinventing the wheel, and it that if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. And it is not about revenge.
]]>