When I look at the present state of our nation and all the events that led us to where we find our country today, I cannot help but blame the 1987 Constitution for many of the obstacles to the Philippines’ achieving its full potential.

While I trust that the framers of the 1987 Constitution (at least at the time they were drafting it) did their best to address what they felt was wrong with our government and did what they thought was necessary to prevent history from repeating itself, many things have changed since then.

The Philippines has been left behind living in the shadow of its tumultuous political past — unable to move forward and achieve progress. Our ASEAN neighbors have outpaced us and with each new administration we seem to descend further into political chaos instead of maturing as a people and, more importantly, as a nation.

As controversial as I know it will be, perhaps it is time to revisit the fundamental law of the land and craft another one that will serve the best interests of our people and our nation. It is time for a Philippine Constitution that learns from its mistakes without holding on to the past. One that puts in place real checks and balances without absurd limitations that discourage instead of promote progress and development.

In this age of digital technology, access to information and news lie in the palm of every citizen. The power to hold to account our public officials has been further amplified by the ability to capture and record any abuse of authority as evidence of illegal, unethical or inappropriate acts or behavior.

Among the constitutional provisions that I believe require revision is the one-term limit for the president. True, the prohibition has prevented the repeat of a rule by a dictator like Marcos Sr. But we must concede that this has come at a great price — stunted economic growth and slow-paced development. Simply put, a six-year term is not enough to achieve real and lasting legacy projects by any president.

Each time we usher in a new administration, projects that were well-studied, with thousands of man-hours put in towards approval and funding, are casually set aside to give way to new ideas and projects that will again require thorough study and undergo the approval and funding process all over again. Only to be set aside by the next administration should it spill over to the next administration without any significant progress.

Given the present state of our bureaucracy, how many major or big-ticket projects can any administration really get done in six years? It’s rare that an administration can really call a project its own as some part of any big infrastructure project would have been started by one administration and finished by another.

Ultimately, the one six-year term limit for presidents is counterproductive and has worked against us, especially when the threat of someone overstaying in office has all but been rendered obsolete in this day and age.