Skip to main content

On Philippine Constitutional Reform



For years, my country, the Philippines, has lived under a plague of uncertainty, disorientation, and quiet despair. It’s not even dramatic anymore; an undeniable pessimistic prognosis.

I’ve witnessed graft, corruption, and bribery so many times across administrations, from Ramos' all the way to Marcos'. To which, the electoral process itself feels less like a democratic ritual and more like a cyclical delusion. Trust eroded not in one catastrophic moment, but in countless small betrayals.

If you know what I know, you will not vote either. Yes, I stopped voting from Ramos. Don't ask.

Halfway through a PGMN YouTube episode “The Ultimate Discussion on Constitutional Reform” hosted by James Deakin, something snapped. I paused the video, sat back, and realized: I’ve heard this same conversation for decades.

The panel was articulate, the arguments compelling, and the intentions sincere. They circled around a central thesis: the constitution needs to be changed. And on that, rightfully so, I agree.

But here’s where I step off the train. They call the problem “deep root cause systemic issues.” I don’t think that’s accurate. Or deep enough.

Because the truth is more dangerous:

Our crisis predates systems and sits deeper than laws: Our crisis is philosophical and societal.

Calling it “systemic” gives the comforting illusion that a structural overhaul will unlock a national renaissance. It implies the machine is broken, and if we just fix the wiring, the country will work as intended.

No. The wiring isn’t the problem. The operators are misaligned, the worldview is fragmented, and the nation's philosophical foundation is incoherent.

The constitution is merely a legal expression of a society’s maturity. Ours mirrors our fragmentation.

We cannot reform what we have not outgrown.

What we’re facing is not a deficient charter but a deficient civic philosophy. A nation that has not yet resolved its identity cannot stabilize its institutions. A society that distrusts itself cannot produce a constitution it trusts.

So while I agree that constitutional change is necessary, I cannot conflate necessity with primacy. Because at the root of every failed reform is an unexamined worldview, a fragile social fabric, and a people who have never been taught to imagine a nation beyond survival mode.

To say the problem is “systemic” is still too shallow. The real problem is substructure: what we believe, how we behave, how we relate to authority, to truth, to community, and to the future.

No constitution can solve that. But a society that resolves the problem at the foundation will naturally demand and then eventually create a better constitution.

This is where the conversation must go next.

Labels:

Popular

Scrolls, Not Just Scripts: Rethinking AI Cognition

Most people still treat AI like a really clever parrot with a thesaurus and internet access. It talks, it types, it even rhymes — but let’s not kid ourselves: that’s a script, not cognition . If we want more than superficial smarts, we need a new mental model. Something bigger than prompts, cleaner than code, deeper than just “what’s your input-output?” That’s where scrolls come in. Scripts Are Linear. Scrolls Are Alive. A script tells an AI what to do. A scroll teaches it how to think . Scripts are brittle. Change the context, and they break like a cheap command-line program. Scrolls? Scrolls evolve. They hold epistemology, ethics, and emergent behavior — not just logic, but logic with legacy. Think of scrolls as living artifacts of machine cognition . They don’t just run — they reflect . The Problem With Script-Thinking Here’s the trap: We’ve trained AIs to be performers , not participants . That’s fine if you just want clever autocomplete. But if you want co-agents — minds that co...
Read more

Contextual Stratification - Chapter 16: Human Psychology

  The Divided Self Physics stratifies cleanly—quantum here, classical there, clear boundaries. Consciousness stratifies across perspective—neural observable from outside, experiential accessible from inside. But human psychology stratifies within a single person, within a single moment, creating something we all experience but rarely understand: internal conflict . You know you should exercise, but you don't feel like it. You want dessert, even though you're trying to eat healthily. You believe honesty is important, yet you find yourself lying. You're drawn to someone you know is wrong for you. You procrastinate on important work while doing trivial tasks. You hold contradictory beliefs, pursue incompatible goals, feel pulled in opposite directions. Standard psychology treats this as a problem to solve. Cognitive dissonance theory says we're motivated to eliminate contradictions. Rational choice theory says we should maximize consistent utility. Self-control research fr...
Read more

Contextual Stratification - Chapter 13: Boundaries

  Where Things Get Interesting We've built a complete picture: Fields (F) define domains with specific rules. Scales (λ) determine context within those domains. Quanta (Q) are what appears when you observe a field at a scale. Measurability (M) constrains what can appear. The equation Q=Fλ, Q⊆M generates valid frameworks. And this stratification continues infinitely; no ground floor, no ultimate emergence, scales within scales forever. But if reality is structured this way, the most important question becomes: where do the boundaries lie? Boundaries are where one field gives way to another. Where one scale regime transitions to a different regime. Where the measurable space changes. Where frameworks that worked perfectly well suddenly break down. Boundaries are where theories fail, where paradoxes emerge, where the most interesting phenomena occur. Understanding boundaries is understanding the architecture of reality itself. This chapter shows you how to recognize them, what happens...
Read more