Don't Use June 12, 1898 To Resist Constitutional Correction

Happy "Independence Day" and no, the Philippines didn't become an independent, self-governing nation until July 4, 1946. In other words, the independent Philippine Republic is merely 72 years old. The whole Republic founded by Emilio Aguinaldo was a de-facto Republic -- the Philippines fell under American control during 1898 (So what's so independent or self-governing about that?), it fell under the Imperial Japanese occupation during 1941 and the Philippines was later released from American control on July 4, 1946.

Some could argue that June 12, 1898 should justify their hundred or more years argument fallacy and say it's not a fallacy. It can be used by the sworn defenders of the 1987 Constitution defend the faulty presidential and unitary system because their basis is Filipinos have a hundred or more years experience in unitary-presidential and zero experience in both parliamentary and federalism.

Here's a bit of the history of the Malolos Constitution. Did you know that it was supposed to be a federal-parliamentary form of government? Hmmm that should be a challenge to that same crazy old man who loves to stick to the idiocy of presidential-unitary all in the name of hundred years experience. Here's a bit of interesting find about the Malolos Constitution's framework under the article "The Malolos Congress":

First Philippine Republic

The first Philippine Republic was inaugurated in Malolos, Bulacan on January 21, 1899. After being proclaimed president, Emilio Aguinaldo took his oath of office. The constitution was read article by article and followed by a military parade. Apolinario Mabini was elected as a prime minister. The other cabinet secretaries were: Teodoro Sandico, interior; Baldomero Aguinaldo, war; Gen. Mariano Trias, finance & war; Apolinario Mabini, foreign affairs; Gracio Gonzaga for welfare, Aguedo Velarde, public instruction; Maximo Paterno, public works & communication; and Leon María Guerrero for agriculture, trade & commerce.

If you notice, Aguinaldo was elected as the president and Mabini was elected as a prime minister. In short, the Philippine republic already had a constitution under the Malolos Constitution. It's stupid to say that the Philippines never had a constitution until 1987 because there was the 1973 Constitution during the time of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and the 1935 Constitution (which introduced the presidential form of government) under the American occupation. The Philippines was already setting up a parliamentary form of government with a Head of State (Emilio Aguinaldo) and a Head of Government (Apolinario Mabini).

If we're going to use the hundred years fallacy or that "We must follow the 1987 Constitution even 1,000 years from now fallacy." -- then shouldn't we well by that standard, follow the 1899 Constitution today even when it's already 2018 with just some amendments without changing the framework? Hmmm talk about the crazy old man's argument that the Philippines never had experience at all in the parliamentary form of government? The Americans introduced the presidential form during their occupation in 1935. So why aren't we still under the 1935 Constitution then? If the Philippines isn't following the Malolos Constitution until today then I don't see any reason why the Philippines should still follow the 1987 Constitution even a thousand years from now!