Human rights transcend
individual respect

Using lies to spread rumor of “widespread support!” for a proposed constitution, for a democracy, does not inspire trust. It invites scorn.
Neither do word games that hide far reaching consequences, such as changing this:
Section 11: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights
to this
"The Federal Republic values the dignity of every person and guarantees full respect for the person and the right of all citizens to participate in all government processes."
which reduces the State’s obligation toward individuals to an abstract “respect” toward individuals, and “participation in government processes.” The revised wording is not an elaboration, but a contraction. A diminution of a value citizens can recognize, and that our State is supposed to uphold.
Why? The contest of asserting individual rights is inevitably social. Asserting human rights is bound up in how society treats whole classes of individuals. Especially (but not only) the marginalized, who otherwise have no power over circumstances that profoundly affect the course of their lives. Those conflicts, those contests, arise that are not resolved by the services of a bureaucracy.
Such conflicts, for example, may ultimately be about sovereignty over one’s body; the desire to be free to profess or reject any recognizably human creed; or to participate in expressions of rootedness in an identity shared with others, without fear of censure or shame, and as profoundly fundamental as one’s sexuality, or the color of one’s skin, or the language that one grew up with. Each such conflict has a history. The concepts, and the history to recognize and protect those examples, above, as goods, are contained by the words “human rights”.
The alteration or removal of these words (as in the draft constitution) signifies a turning away from recognizing those struggles (often also waged elsewhere), those histories as valid parts of human experience. There can be no bureaucracy so total, so far-reaching, as to be able to enforce a just solution to every instance of oppression; at least, I cannot imagine one that also allows us to be free. There is an economy to the phrase “guarantees full respect for human rights” that is ill served in the alteration. There is no need to do so that the high priest of legal scholarship Fr Ranhilo Aquino has bothered to explain.