There are numerous provisions in the 1987 Constitution which are made indefinite by the clause “as may be provided by law”, or words to that same effect.

The law
1. The fundamental law provides, among others, as follows:
a) “The State shall… prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law” (Sec. 26, ART. II).

b) “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest” (Sec. 28, ibid.).

c) “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws” (Sec. 1, ART. III)

d) “The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law” (Sec. 3[1], id.).

e) “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law” (Sec. 6, id.).

f) “The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee, or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law” (Sec. 19[2], id.).

The problem
2. The supposed protective mantle of the Constitution appears to have been made uncertain and, therefore, defeats the twin constitutional purposes of upholding the rights of the citizenry and limiting the powers of government.

Comments
3. There are two basic legal concepts that ought to be borne in mind – RIGHT and DUTY.

4. Right is the entitlement to the satisfaction of human needs and wants. The need is a primary night while the want is secondary. Thus, where there is a human need or want, there is a right that government must protect and uphold.

5. Duty or obligation is the juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. (Art. 1156, Civil Code). Under the law, the duty of government to promote the common good is a matter of juridical necessity. If the government fails, the system fails. And the breakdown of society naturally follows.

6. The Constitution, the legal instrument by which government is constituted, is supposed to be the bedrock upon which objective standards of governmental action must be founded. Such standards, to be fair, must be objective, not subjective. Hence, where the standards are not certain, it cannot be considered objective or fair.

7. While the Constitution seemingly prohibits political dynasties, the employment of the clause “as may be defined by law” makes the prohibition INUTILE simply by refusal on the part of the majority of senators and members of the House of Representatives to define the term.

8. The people’s right to full public disclosure of all governmental transactions under the Constitution is a mere ILLUSION. The right is made subject to such conditions as the senators and members of the House of Representatives may feel would offer enough protection to the personal interests of public officials who are either honest or dishonest. Moreover, the right is limited to those transactions involving public interest. The provision COVERS UP those transactions involving private interest where much graft and corruption can be committed.

9. Due process and equal protection in judicial and non-judicial proceedings could have been objectively defined in the Constitution.The authors inexplicably DID NOT.

10. The right of PRIVACY, under the Constitution, may be violated in two ways - first, by order of a judicial officer appointed by a political Chief Executive; and second, under such terms as the majority of senators and House representatives may deem fair to their related interests.

11. The liberty of abode may be IMPAIRED by order of a politically appointed judge.

12. The right to travel may be IMPAIRED as the majority of congressmen may decide.

13. Under the Constitution, there is no real right against IMHUMANE treatment of prisoners or detainees. What is provided is mere appearance, not substance which is left to the predilections of the political congressmen.

Conclusion
The laws to be made by Congress, to be enforced by Malacañang, and to be construed and applied by the Supreme Court must—of utmost juridical necessity—be consistent with the Constitution. Otherwise, the act would be unconstitutional and verily a betrayal of public trust. It is, therefore, essential that the fundaments in the basic law are kept objective and certain. They cannot be abdicated, as it now appears, in favor of the discretion, learned or otherwise, of either elected or appointed politicians. In other words, it would appear that the 1987 Constitution writers may have done the Filipino people a great disservice.