In a democracy, there is one document that stands above presidents, senators, judges, political parties and every other government institution: the “Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.”
It is not a suggestion.
It is not a guideline that government officials may adjust whenever circumstances become inconvenient.
And it certainly cannot be rewritten simply because a majority of politicians happens to prefer a different outcome!
This basic principle should be understood by every Filipino—not only by lawyers, legislators and constitutional scholars.
The Constitution itself provides the process by which it may be changed. Under Article XVII, constitutional amendments or revisions must go through constitutionally prescribed procedures and, ultimately, ratification by the Filipino people in a plebiscite.
That is fundamentally different from passing an ordinary law.
Congress may enact statutes. The Senate may adopt resolutions. Government officials may issue rules and regulations. Courts may interpret the law and determine whether government acts conform to the Constitution.
“But none of these institutions possesses a free-floating power to simply erase, rewrite or suspend a constitutional provision because they find it inconvenient.”
This distinction is crucial.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution; it does not own it.
“The Senate applies the Constitution within the powers assigned to it; it does not stand above it.”
And Congress, even when acting with overwhelming political support, remains bound by the Constitution unless it follows the very procedure the Constitution itself provides for changing it.
Of course, constitutional interpretation is sometimes difficult. The language of the Constitution may require judicial interpretation. Different constitutional provisions may have to be reconciled. Legitimate legal disagreements can and do exist.
“But there is a thin line between interpreting the Constitution and rewriting the Constitution.”
That line matters!
If the Constitution establishes a particular requirement, government institutions cannot simply announce that the requirement no longer applies because complying with it produces an inconvenient political result.
Otherwise, what exactly is the purpose of having a written Constitution?
Imagine a basketball game where the players themselves decide, in the middle of the final quarter, that the three-point line should be moved because the existing line makes winning more difficult.
That is not changing the rules according to the rules!
That is changing the rules because someone wants a different result or someone wants to benefit from it.
Our Constitution deserves better.
This is particularly important whenever constitutional questions arise in politically charged proceedings, including impeachment. Political passions can be intense. Senators may have strongly held opinions. Parties may have competing interests. The public may already have chosen sides.
But the Constitution does not change depending on who is being tried, who benefits from a particular interpretation, or which political faction currently has the numbers.
If a constitutional provision is ambiguous, let the proper legal process determine its meaning.
If it needs to be changed, follow Article XVII.
If a statute violates it, the courts may strike down the statute.
But if we begin treating constitutional provisions as obstacles that can simply be voted away, we are no longer defending constitutional government. We are allowing political convenience to become a substitute for constitutional authority.
And that should concern every Filipino—whether one supports the President, the Vice President, the Senate, the opposition, or none of them.
Because today, a constitutional shortcut may benefit the political camp we support.
Tomorrow, the same shortcut may be used against us.
The Constitution was deliberately made higher than the politicians who temporarily occupy positions of power.
That is precisely the point.
A senator’s term expires. A president’s term expires. A Supreme Court justice eventually leaves the bench. Political alliances rise and fall.
But the Constitution remains.
So before we cheer for a particular constitutional interpretation simply because it produces the political result we want, perhaps we should ask a more fundamental question:
Does the Constitution actually say that—or are we merely hoping it does?
For ordinary Filipinos, constitutional literacy is not an academic luxury.
It is our protection against the abuse of power.
Because in a republic governed by the rule of law, the Constitution is not a suggestion. It is the rulebook that even those who make, interpret and enforce the law must obey.
