No more lame excuses

Enough with the Excuses: Why Constitutional Reform is Long Overdue in the Philippines

From President Ramos in 1995 to President Marcos Jr. in 2025, the Philippines has seen at least 13 serious efforts to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution. And yet—every single time—the same tired arguments are employed to stall change.

Let us dissect these exhausted excuses and finally discuss why constitutional reform (Charter Change or Cha-Cha) is not only needed, but imperative to the Philippines.

Google Photo

The Usual Anti-Charter Change Excuses—Shot Down

1. "It will be used to extend terms!"

This specter has dogged each effort, but it's a scare tactic—no valid argument. Constitutional change can be effected without term extensions. Safeguards can be included.

2. “Foreigners will own our lands!”

False. What we’re talking about is economic liberalization—allowing foreign direct investment (FDI) in key sectors. Land ownership can still be protected through enabling laws. Singapore, Vietnam, and even China allow foreign investment—yet they’re not colonized.

3. “We’ll be colonized again.”

That's not the way globalization goes in the 21st century. Foreign partners are what we need to construct industries, generate jobs, and introduce technologies. Economic nationalism cannot be equated with isolationism.

4. "It's not a priority."

It's never been a priority for decades—and that's why we're still adrift with high poverty, low wages, and massive emigration of talent overseas. How can actual development occur if we never address the underlying causes?

5. "The issue is the politicians, not the Constitution."

Actually—it's both. The existing Constitution allows political dynasties, party switching, and power centralization. A dysfunctional system yields dysfunctional leadership.

6. "It's poor timing."

That's been the rationale for 30 years. When, precisely, is the perfect time? In the middle of a disaster? An election? The response is always "not now." That's the point: there's never a "perfect" time—we need gutsy action, now.

7. "We already have the best Constitution in the world."

That was the statement of somebody who blocked each move to contemporize the Charter. But honestly, a Charter that restricts foreign capital, permits dynasties, and concentrates Manila power is not best—it's a relic.

8. "It hasn't been properly implemented yet."

So we’re supposed to wait another 40 years? That’s a cop-out. The flaws are structural. No amount of implementation will fix anti-growth, anti-progress provisions.

9. “We don’t have budget for federalism.”

We don’t have the budget because the economy can’t grow fast enough. Federalism, if done right, empowers regions to generate and manage their own wealth. That’s how Malaysia, Germany, and the U.S. do it.

10. “We need aid, not Cha-Cha.”

Aid is temporary. Reform is forever. The greatest assistance we can offer Filipinos is a more excellent system that will not drive them out of the house just to survive.

11. "It will be hijacked by corrupt politicians."

Not if the people remain watchful. Reform won't be ideal, but sticking with a damaged system because we are fearful of abuse is tantamount to not having surgery because you fear malpractice.

12. "It's all for political gain."

Of course, some will attempt to manipulate the process. But that's precisely why we need transparency, public education, and robust citizen engagement—not fear-mongering or apathy.

The Actual Problem: Our Constitution Is Outdated

The 1987 Constitution, written in the aftermath of the Marcos transition, was composed with fear as a concern—rather than growth. It is filled with protectionist laws, Manila-biased government, and bureaucratic straitjackets that choke off innovation and decentralization.

We are living in 2025, but we are living with laws and structures drafted in the shadow of 1986. Our neighbors, on the other hand, progressed long ago.

How Other Southeast Asian Countries Reformed

• Vietnam: Opened its economy in the 1990s. Now one of the fastest-growing in Asia.
• Malaysia: Overhauled education, infrastructure, and investment policies.
• Thailand: Revised its Constitution to enhance governance and accountability.
• Singapore: Constructed its world-class economy through structural reform, not leadership alone.

The outcome?

More employment, better pay, less brain drain—and quicker development.

Benefits of Constitutional Reform in the Philippines

1. More Employment and Investments

Revising economic provisions will allow foreign capital to penetrate industries—creating jobs and better pay.

2. Balanced Regional Development

With federalism or enhanced local autonomy, regions are able to develop according to their resources and priorities, putting an end to the "Imperial Manila" syndrome.

3. Enhanced Political Accountability

Political party reform and anti-turncoat laws would promote platform-oriented politics, not elections based on personalities.

4. Better Public Services

Areas controlling their own coffers translate to quicker infrastructure, improved health care, and tailored education solutions.

5. Less Migration and OFW Dependency

With greater opportunities at home, Filipinos won't need to leave their families behind just to work.

6. A New, Competitive Economy

Brought in line with international standards, our economic laws enable the Philippines to compete equally and entice long-term investments.

Conclusion: System Change, Not Leadership Change

Let's break free from the same old anti-reform propaganda.

Constitutonal Reform isn't about prolonging terms, selling the nation, or taking over—it's about liberating the Filipino people from a malfunctioning, outmoded system that has been unable to usher in prosperity for nearly 40 years.

We owe it to ourselves and to the future to put down fear and pick up on true, fearless reform.

It's not a matter of who holds power—it's about getting the system in order so power works for people.

Ready to take action or get more involved? Join civic education campaigns, reach out to your local leaders, and assist in making the call for a better tomorrow louder through systemic reform.

Leadership matters but systems matter more

Debunking the Myth: "The Philippines Only Thrived Under Duterte" — and Why We Need Systemic Reform

A common myth keeps going around on the internet: that the Philippines was poor under Cory Aquino until Noynoy Aquino, and only under President Rodrigo Duterte did real change actually start. Its proponents point to gigantic allocations for infrastructure, free college tuition, and increased pensions as proof that "it was all possible—so why wasn't it done before?"

It sounds good at face value. But let's look at the historical realities, economic indicators, and structural framework to see what actually transpired—and why it's not so much about a single leader, but a deeper flawed system which keeps the Philippines in check irrespective of who is holding office.

Photo: LBB Online

1. The country was poor from Cory to Noynoy. – FALSE

Upon taking office in 1986, President Cory Aquino was left with a ruined economy from the Marcos regime—a debt of more than $26 billion, widespread crony capitalism, and debased democratic institutions. Her six-year term was focused on institutional reconstruction, ratifying the 1987 Constitution, reinstalling democracy but also installing restrictions still debated today.

Economic Growth:

• Fidel Ramos (1992–1998): Spurred reforms and deregulation; growth was averaged at 5%.
• Gloria Arroyo (2001–2010): Attained robust growth (4.5% average) despite worldwide crises.
• Noynoy Aquino (2010–2016): Provided 6.2% average GDP growth, investment-grade credit ratings, and enhanced global economic rankings.

FACT: Between 1986 and 2016, the Philippines was making steady gains. The notion that "nothing happened for 30 years" is contrary to facts.

2. There was no funding during PNoy's time. – MISLEADING

Noynoy Aquino's administration was known for fiscal discipline, aiming to reduce debt and corruption. Many of Duterte’s programs were made possible due to the healthy economy and stable reserves left by PNoy.

Major initiatives under PNoy:

• Sin Tax Reform (2012): Funded healthcare expansion
• K-12 Education Reform
• Infrastructure budget rose from 1.8% to 5.4% of GDP
• Social and education spending significantly increased

FACT: The Duterte administration built on these gains, not created them from scratch.

3. Duterte accomplished more than anyone else. – EXAGGERATED

Duterte did initiate important projects, such as Build, Build, Build, but most of these were continuations or renamed versions of initiatives initiated under past presidents:

• NAIA Expressway and MRT-7: Initiated under PNoy
• Clark Green City: Conceived under Arroyo
• Universal Health Care: Foundation laid by PNoy's PhilHealth reforms
• And while Duterte ramped up spending:
• The Philippine debt ballooned to over P13.7 trillion
• Only 12 of the 119 Build, Build, Build projects were finished by 2022
• Pharmally corruption scandal revealed lack of transparency

FACT: Mega budgets and boisterous policies do not always translate to mega impact.

4. "Everything was free under Duterte." – MISREPRESENTED

Most programs were not new:

• Free college tuition: Suggested long before Duterte; written by Bam Aquino
• Land distribution: Initiated with Cory Aquino's CARP in 1988
• Healthcare and veterans' pensions: Expanded but not created under Duterte

FACT: These weren’t Duterte’s sole achievements—they were part of a larger, decades-long effort by various administrations, lawmakers, and civil society.

5. LPs were just corrupt, and Duterte stopped them. – BASELESS AND DIVISIVE

Corruption has occurred under all administrations. Duterte’s term faced:

• Pharmally scandal (P10B in pandemic supplies)
• Intelligence funds with no audit
• Drug war abuses with minimal accountability

FACT: Good governance requires checks and balances, not blind allegiance to any one party or figure.

6. The Real Issue: A Flawed and Archaic System

While arguments storm about who "did more," the underlying problem is still left untouched: the 1987 Constitution, composed during an atmosphere of fear and change during the period after Martial Law, has become antiquated and structurally defective.

Primary Defects of the Present System:

• Excessive concentration of power in "Imperial Manila"
• Limitations on foreign direct investment (FDI) dissuade job creation
• Weakened political party system – personality over platforms
• Obstacles to regional progress and federalism
• Bureaucratic and slow legislation and justice system

Other ASEAN Countries Reformed:

• Singapore reformed early and is now the model of governance
• Malaysia and Thailand reformed constitutions for better governance
• Vietnam, being communist, opened up its economy and emerged as one of Asia's fastest-growing markets

The Philippines, on the other hand, is mired with a hyper-presidential, unitary system which renders true progress in slow, uneven, and unsustainable terms.

7. We Need Constitutional Reform—Not Just a New President

The fact is, even if you choose the most effective leader, if the system is flawed, improvement will always be constrained.

What we need:

• Transition to federalism or parliamentary system for local empowerment
• Economic Charter Change to entice more investments and employment
• Strengthening of political parties and anti-dynasty measures
• Decentralization of government services and funds

FACT: The Constitution should empower the country, not chain it.

Conclusion: Leadership Matters—But Systems Matter More

Rodrigo Duterte also had his part to play, but it's not true that he single-handedly changed the nation or that nobody contributed. Each administration has built on the previous one. Genuine change will not come from allegiance to any personality—it will come from structural change that will bring sustainable, inclusive growth for all Filipinos.

Until we update the old 1987 Constitution, we will just keep on electing leaders with grand ideas only to see them trapped in a slow, imperfect system.

Let's stop squabbling about personalities. Let's begin repairing the system.

Sources:

• World Bank Philippines Data: https://data.worldbank.org/country/philippines
• Rappler Fact-Check: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check
• Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA): https://psa.gov.ph
• NEDA Public Policy Briefs
• Senate and House Legislative Archives
• Asian Development Bank Reports
• "Why Charter Change Is Essential" – UP School of Economics Discussion Paper
• Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)

Is heavy traffic a sign of progress?

Is Heavy Traffic in the Philippines a Sign of Progress?

Introduction

The Philippines, and specifically Metro Manila, is infamous for heavy traffic. Many say this congestion is a mark of economic progress: it means there are more cars in circulation, more people living in urban centers. But is it truly a mark of progress or just an indicator of inefficiency that stands as an impediment to sustainable growth? Let's talk about it on this blog and explore whether heavy traffic is a sign of advancement or the symptom of something else deeper. 

On the surface, heavy traffic may be perceived as a symbol of progress. Metro Manila, after all, is an attractive place for businesses, creating jobs and increasing consumer spending. Increasing vehicle sales, infrastructure development, and busy streets are usually considered indicators of economic vitality. 

However, a closer examination reveals a more complex picture. Traffic congestion can also reflect poor urban planning, insufficient public transportation, and unregulated growth. It’s not just about the number of cars on the road; it’s about how cities accommodate their increasing populations.

A progressive society should aim for mobility and efficiency. Traffic jams, on the other hand, cost the economy billions in lost productivity, increase fuel consumption, and degrade air quality. Can we really call this heavy traffic a sign of progress?

Photo: Ben Briones

Debunking or refuting this claim

It is way too simplistic to argue that heavy traffic equates to progress. True progress should relate to the quality of life rather than economic activity. Singapore and Tokyo are examples of cities where urbanization doesn't necessarily go with crippling traffic. Instead, these cities have focused on efficient public transportation systems, smart traffic management, and policies that put people before vehicles.

In contrast, Metro Manila is plagued by overdependence on private cars, inadequate public transport, and urban sprawl. Even as GDP grows, these issues persist, so it is more a product of mismanagement rather than success.

Resources

For further reading, I suggest checking out:

1. Asian Development Bank Reports – Information on infrastructure and urbanization in Southeast Asia.
2. World Bank Urban Development Series -Case studies on sustainable city planning.
3. Move As One Coalition -A local action coalition that calls for change and reform in public transport, particularly in the Philippines.

Takeaways

Traffic congestion is not one of the natural indicators of prosperity but rather a messy one associated with urban development and governance.

Good and clean urban planning, a functioning public transport system, and efficient traffic management define good progress.

The Philippines, in comparison to better-functioning cities reflects the difference between prosperity and quality of life.

Conclusion

While heavy traffic in the Philippines may indicate economic activities, it ultimately points towards inefficiencies in urban planning and transportation systems. Progress has to be measured by how good a city is at taking care of its people such that growth benefits everyone. As Filipinos, we must fight for smarter solutions that are sustainable and that represent real progress, not just the illusion of progress.

Let's work to make these congested roads avenues of real development.

Author's Note:

Have you been stuck in hours of a traffic jam in Metro Manila? Very frustrating, right? Not one to accept as unavoidable, let's instead explore what we can do about changing this narrative. We need to keep the discussion flowing. Let's start chatting in the comments section.

The fight for your digital connection

PLDT vs. the Konektadong Pinoy Act: Whose Interest Really Comes First?

PLDT recently made headlines after announcing that it would sue if the Konektadong Pinoy Act becomes law. The company argues that the bill’s open-access provisions could threaten network security and create unfair competition.

Google Photo

On paper, the Konektadong Pinoy Act seeks to liberalize the data transmission market to more operators, with the promise of providing cheaper, faster, and more accessible internet for every Filipino. For a nation that perennially finds itself among the list of countries with the slowest and most pricey internet in Southeast Asia, this sounds like a step in the right direction.

The Problem with PLDT's Stance

Rather than endorsing the bill's intentions to improve internet access and pricing, PLDT seems more interested in safeguarding its own market stronghold. For decades, the Philippine internet market has been dominated by a handful of large players, and the absence of real competition has maintained prices high while speeds fall far behind international standards.

With a proposal to open up the industry to greater competition now on the table, PLDT is resisting—naming threats that, as theoretical, are legitimate but could just as easily be addressed with proper safeguards. The timing and tenor of their resistance beg an important question: Do they care about national security, or do they fear losing domination of the market?

The Price of Monopoly to the Filipino People

Filipinos have long suffered:

• Sluggish internet speeds that impede productivity, learning, and entertainment.
• Exorbitant monthly charges relative to other regional countries.
• Insufficient selection when it comes to carriers.

These problems are not mere aggravations—each one directly affects the nation's economic development, competitiveness, and capacity to be a part of a digital society.

By maintaining the market closed to greater competition, dominant carriers such as PLDT have had little reason to focus on being competitive or reducing prices.

Why PLDT Must Be the Solution, Not the Problem

If PLDT really cares about its customers, it ought to be at the forefront of figuring out how to make open-access happen, not sending lawyers at the first hint of progress. This could involve:

• Working with policymakers to get security measures absolutely watertight.
• Working with new entrants to build out the infrastructure, not shutting them out.
• Competing on improved service and innovation, not market exclusivity.

After all, a safe, affordable, and speedy internet is in the best interest of the whole country—including PLDT subscribers.

The Bigger Picture

The Konektadong Pinoy Act is more than faster home Wi-Fi; it's about digital empowerment—empowering students, entrepreneurs, remote workers, and underserved communities to be full participants in the new economy.

If we continue to let monopolistic behavior call the shots on the future of our internet, we will keep lagging behind our Southeast Asian neighbors who have championed openness, competition, and innovation.

Bottom line: It's time to make connectivity for the people a priority over the interests of the few. The Konektadong Pinoy Act is given a fair shake—with out choking it with corporate fear of competition.