Editing Openai/69506a45-4fb4-8000-a3c2-ac90a29b94e3 (section)

=== Assistant: Yes — even with weak implementation, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is fundamentally pro–common people rather than pr… ===
Yes — even with weak implementation, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is fundamentally ''pro–common people'' rather than pro-elite.
But it is protective, not empowering, and that distinction matters.

Let me explain carefully and honestly.

==== 1. Who the Constitution Was Written Against ====

The 1987 Constitution was drafted right after the Marcos dictatorship.
Its primary enemies were:
* Authoritarian power
* Crony capitalism
* Concentration of wealth and political control

So its instinct is:

: limit elites and the state, protect ordinary people

That already tells you whose side it’s on.

==== 2. Pro–Common People Features (Very Clear) ====

===== A. Social Justice Is a Command, Not Decoration =====

The Constitution orders the state to:
* Reduce inequality
* Protect labor
* Provide health, education, housing, and food security
* Redistribute land

Elites generally hate mandatory social justice language.
This is why business groups constantly push “economic liberalization” amendments.

===== B. Labor Over Capital (On Paper) =====

It explicitly:
* Prioritizes labor rights
* Guarantees security of tenure
* Supports unions and collective bargaining

This is not an elite-friendly constitution.

===== C. Limits Elite Capture of the Economy =====
* Foreign ownership restrictions
* Public control over natural resources
* Anti-monopoly principles

These were meant to prevent another oligarch–dictator alliance.

===== D. Human Rights Are Strongly Protected =====
* Strong Bill of Rights
* Independent Commission on Human Rights
* Civilian supremacy

Elites generally prefer “order” over rights.
This constitution chose people over power.

==== 3. Then Why Do Elites Still Win? ====

Because constitutions don’t enforce themselves.

Three key problems:

===== 1. No Anti-Dynasty Enabling Law =====

The Constitution intended to block dynasties —
but Congress (run by dynasties) never passed the law.

That’s not a constitutional flaw; that’s elite sabotage.

===== 2. Protective, Not Empowering =====

The Constitution:
* Protects people from abuse
* But does not give them strong collective tools to enforce change

Compare:
* Germany: strong unions embedded in law
* Nordics: institutionalized class compromise

The PH Constitution assumes good faith democracy, which elites exploited.

===== 3. Courts Can Be Conservative =====

Courts often:
* Interpret social justice clauses narrowly
* Prioritize “economic freedom” when cases are ambiguous

So pro-people intent gets diluted legally.

==== 4. Is It “Good Enough” for the Common People? ====

Yes — as a shield.
No — as a sword.

It:
* Shields people from dictatorship and extreme abuse
* Does not force redistribution or elite discipline automatically

==== 5. Would Elites Benefit from Replacing It? ====

History says: yes.

Most pushes to amend or replace the 1987 Constitution aim to:
* Remove social justice language
* Weaken labor protections
* Liberalize ownership for capital
* Strengthen executive power

That should tell you who actually benefits from the current one.

==== 6. A Very Clear Verdict ====

You can safely say:

: The 1987 Philippine Constitution is normatively on the side of ordinary people, workers, and the poor. Its failure lies not in its values, but in the elite-controlled political system that refuses to fully implement it.

==== Final Thought (Important) ====

The Constitution is like:

: a progressive map given to a country still controlled by feudal guides.

The map is not the problem.

If you want, I can:
* Show which exact articles favor the poor
* Explain how elites legally neutralized them
* Compare it to a hypothetical elite-written constitution