Stop Using The Hundreds Of Years Argument To Defend The 1987 Constitution

I remembered writing an article some time ago where I blasted the ridiculous idea of rejecting something just because the Philippines had 100 or more years experience in one and zero experience in another. No, that's not a good excuse to do so and worse some people who adhere to the fallacy that arguing based on a hundred years experience is not a fallacy -- use it to defend the 1987 Constitution (even to the point of saying it should still be used even 1,000 years from now) while ignoring these historical facts of the Philippines:

1. Prior to the colonization, the Philippines was not even united as one nation until the Spaniards from Imperial Spain came and claimed it as their territory. 
2. There was the 1899 Malolos Constitution after the Philippines was freed from Imperial Spain.
3. There was the 1935 Constitution which was before the Philippines truly gained its sovereignty on July 4, 1946 and not June 12, 1898. 
4. The 1973 Constitution preceded the 1987 Constitution.

The problem of using the argument of the hundred years argument is that it's still the year 2018 and NOT the year 2087 -- which means that the 1987 Constitution is barely even half a century old. To use the argument would mean the Philippines shouldn't have gained independence during the near 300 years of colonization where one can say, "Well, we are so used to Spanish rule so let's stay the same." But guess what -- one day the Spaniards were overthrown and then came the Malolos Constitution in its place!

To argue that one should remain presidential-unitary system (because for them frameworks don't matter) because of the 100 or more years experience re-raises more dilemmas aside from the "we're used to Spanish rule". Let's consider what's been used in other countries but have been gone with the wind all of a sudden some time ago aside from the Philippines under Spain for nearly 300 years:

1. The Chinese government was once ruled by emperors for centuries then the time of the emperors came to an end. Today, it's presidential-unitary in China. Nobody rules from the Forbidden City anymore.
2. Japan used to be run by a government that once regarded the emperor as divine until Emperor Hirohito renounced it. Today, the Japanese emperor no longer serves such purpose. The Japanese Emperor of Modern Japan is the Head of State and there's the Japanese parliament. World War 2 ended Imperial Japan's constitution replacing it with Modern Japan's constitution.
3. Britain was once an absolute monarchy but now the head of the monarchy is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the head of government.

Judging by the hundred years experience so such people should tell me why these monarchies were either removed or demoted to as symbolic heads of state? China had more experience in being ruled by a Chinese emperor for centuries. China had change from one emperor to another and one dynasty after the other until the Chinese Empire crumbled and Imperial China was no more. Today, the Forbidden City is a tourist site and not a place for people to do politics. China has had only a few decades of non-imperial rule in contrast to the vast experience they had in imperial policies. Don't tell me China should return to the time of the emperors because of experience? 

Besides, was the 1987 Constitution based purely on a hundred years experience in one and zero years experience in another? Not entirely. In fact, it was a Constitution that ended up bringing the following problems such as economic protectionism, an even lousier presidential system where popularity rules over credibility and further strengthening Imperial Manila. Still think of using the hundred years fallacy to defend a Constitution that's even barely half a century old?