MY Mocha is just a little bit faultless; well, almost perfect. My wife Sylvia hates it when I show interest for Mocha. Last week, we celebrated our 44th wedding anniversary. On our way home from dinner, I had this urge to bring my Mocha home with us. She surprisingly agreed.

The closest from home where I can get my Mocha, also called mochachi or mocaccino, is the Blugre Café at the MTS, not Starbucks. My wife hates it when I sip this chocolate-flavored variant of a caffè latte. She says I’m already fat and recommends just plain Americano.

This column however is about the other Mocha. She has been raked over the coals lately that I thought I’d dive right in and try to put things in perspective.

I have never met Mocha Uson. I don’t have any personal knowledge of what she is other than what I read in social media. I don’t follow her in Facebook or twitter. I don’t even have a twitter account. So, this column is not a paean to her.

But I just hate it when the so-called literati and educated look down on people’s newfound status. I find certain commonalities with the young lady. We are both children of murdered fathers—both public servants whose assailants were never brought to justice. In some ways, I sympathize with this hardworking girl.

Mocha Uson’s stint early this year as a member of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) drew a lot of reactions from netizens, fellow celebrities, and even from some government officials. But her appointment this week as assistant secretary really stirred a hornet’s nest. Offhand, there is no question as to the President’s prerogative to choose his people. The Deegong has already gone on record that he did it “…in payment of his debt of gratitude for her earlier support for his presidential bid…”; and by now we should know that PRRD gives premium to such loyalty.

PRRD appreciates the kind of expertise Mocha possesses which, by the way, no one among the President’s people can provide. The former “sexy dancer” as she is disparagingly referred to by the snooty, has broken through the traditional choices made by past presidents and that made her entry to the PRRD government blunt and unwelcomed. But she is closer to the female version of the Deegong, a person with common sense who understands the language of the masses, and all in all a political outsider with potential for public service.

The accusation of her lack of education is hogwash. She graduated from a leading Manila university and has a bachelor’s degree. We have a lot of highly educated public servants who have been caught with their sticky fingers in the government coffers. Enough of high-class education!

Political blogging draws networks together in a community that tackles as many diverse societal issues as there are bloggers. They can be very idiosyncratic and unavoidably readers are influenced by the partisanship of some very articulate ones. But this is the whole point of blogging where the readership is allowed instant intimacies fundamental to social media interaction in contrast to traditional media where interface with readers is staid and confined to “letters to the editor”. Bloggers like Mocha Uson inject subjectivity into the political conversation shaping arguments condensed from opinions of the readers.

Her political blog has been a popular online hub mainly because she speaks and writes the language not only of the millennials but of the ordinary person on the street. She is astute enough to strategically position herself on an issue extracting every ounce of advantage. When petitions demanded to close down her Facebook page, she plastered online her photo, gagged with a silver masking tape. She defiantly telegraphed the message that she will not be silenced defending the persona and the interests of the Deegong.

Her Palace appointment, however, is a double-edged one. As a high official of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) she has been entrusted the sensitive job of communicating government programs and official presidential messages to the citizenry and even beyond through social media. Along with it, of course, comes the privileges, honors and recognition. Therein lies her difficulty. As a private blogger, she was free to say and print what was in her mind. She has been accused of concocting fake news in defense of the Deegong and like her sponsor, was also liberal with language often considered inappropriate.

There is a code of conduct that covers government officials (RA 6713) and she could be made liable for transgressions now that she has morphed from a private person to an official government employee. Her strength as a private blogger could be a bane as a government-paid publicist. Henceforth, she will be put under a microscope of severe political scrutiny not only by the detractors of the Deegong but even his own allies perhaps resentful of the ascendancy of one who was once a member of the “dancing entourage” of the presidential campaign.

And she could be vulnerable defending the President’s programs from the predictable attacks by traditional media. She can no longer label print media as “presstitutes” when they become critical of DU30s policies, especially in matters which the Deegong considers his very own personal advocacy—human rights and illegal drugs. But with reportedly about 5 million followers in her Facebook page, she has her back covered. So, let Mocha be Mocha!

DURING the 8th Centrist Democratic Party (CDP) congress that was held at the Marco Polo Hotel in Davao City last May 6, Senate President Koko Pimentel presented the PDP Laban’s federal-parliamentary model which is a hybrid of the US and German systems. He described it as “…semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary but uniquely Filipino”. His presentation was thorough and detailed, and it was apparent that the model was borne out of the PDP Laban’s experience and grasp of the Philippine situation over the years. It was a formidable reflection too of what is in the mind of its main sponsor, President Rodrigo Duterte, their party chairman.

Some basic features of the political structure is the retention of a universally elected president as head of state with specific powers granted by the soon to be revised 1987 Constitution. It has in effect a “strong federal president” but one who does not assume all the responsibilities of running the bureaucracy of government. Thus, the designation “semi-presidential”.

The legislative body retains the two houses—with a twist. Senators will be elected by the states, similar to the two senators from each of the 50 US states comprising the 100-member US Senate. The Senate has certain veto powers over some of the actions of parliament but it is strictly not a “lawmaking body”.

The parliament is the equivalent of the current House of Representatives with members elected from each of the 11 states of the Philippine Federal Republic. And the political party that has the majority of MPs gets to choose the prime minister, the head of government. Majority of lawmaking powers emanate from this body and only from among the MPs will come the prime minister. The current “party list” are embedded in the party and are allotted seats in parliament on a proportional basis.

All these are models to be discussed and debated publicly and none is “itinaga sa bato” (written in stone), as Senator Koko said. But the main thrust of PDP Laban is that federalism must be in place before President Duterte steps down from office in 2022 – a good 60 months from today.

Closer to German model

The CDP “Roadmap to Federalism” presented by the author, hews closer to the German than the US system. For one, the executive and legislative bodies are fused into a unicameral (one body) parliament; with the party which gets the most number of members of parliament elected choosing the Prime Minister, the head of government. The President, elected from among the members of parliament, surrenders his membership to any party and becomes the head of state – and like the current Queen of England has ceremonial duties, none political. The President who holds office for five years is given some powers by the Constitution – like that of commander in chief.

The PDP Laban and CDP positions are not that far apart as to the political structures, differing only in the time element. The PDP Laban’s thrust is transition to a federal parliamentary government within 60 months. CDP looks at a longer horizon even beyond 2022 – after President Duterte’s term.

To put this in perspective, federalism is intricate and complex. It is the antithesis to an aberrant unitary government practiced over a century, where values of political patronage have permeated the body politic.

The CDP roadmap is thus designed to mitigate the shock to the body politic arising from the purging of traditional political practices through the immediate passage of reform laws, now pending in Congress. Furthermore, the critical process of transition to a parliamentary-federal republic has to be in place in the revised constitution so the assurance of its continuity is safeguarded by the constitution itself even beyond the term of the current President.

3 major steps

The CDP federalism roadmap is simplified in three major steps:

1. To put in place four preconditions while revising the 1987 Constitution: political party reforms now pending in Congress; pass a universal freedom of information law; instigate electoral reforms; and make the ban on political dynasties executory in the constitution. The time frame here is two years with a plebiscite by May 2019.

2. The transition into a parliamentary government, known as “party government” because of the pivotal role of political parties.

3. Provinces and highly urbanized component cities are allowed to evolve first to an autonomous territory. Government can’t impose on the body politic the territories that will eventually become states in a federal format. Provinces and cities need to negotiate as to actual territories and population to encompass a bigger state; the considerations of the natural resources and wealth; the similarity of customs and language; and even the seat of the state capitals. All this will need time and with guidance from parliament.

By the time the President steps down, the parliamentary government will be in place. The prime minister or head of government will be chosen by the political party majority or through party coalitions. The president or head of state will be elected from among the members of parliament. Transitory provisions in the 2022 Constitution may allow DU30, by then 77 years of age, to be the head of state, with lesser powers but with his political ascendance intact. Or if he so chooses, he may retire.

The Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines (CDP) – with its new tagline of “Partido Para Pederalismo”, has successfully hosted the 8th National Congress on the 6th of May 2017 at Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City, Philippines.

Secretary Ernesto C. Abella, who was one of the invited keynote speakers along with Senate President Aquilino “Koko" Pimentel, talked about the programs of the Duterte administration. He was glad that the CDP share the same vision with the administration and that federalism will most likely take place in the Duterte government but only when the people is willing to take an active part in such change.

With optimism, Sec. Abella said that “it takes a nation, to build a nation” and the way forward is through federalism.

Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel, the PDP-LABAN President, also spoke about their party’s version of roadmap to federalism.

CDP and PDP-LABAN have similar ideological underpinnings although the CDP’s position on some issues has a slight twist with that of the PDP-Laban stance: a unicameral versus a bicameral parliament; a ceremonial president versus a strong one; and the Prime Minister as Head of Government leading towards an eventual Federal system of government. The major divergence in both position is in the question of timing of the restructuring of political elements.

The CDP passed a resolution to thresh out differences of the two positions in a meeting to be represented by coordinating bodies of PDP-LABAN and CDP.

JOEL Rocamora’s article last year in Rappler (“Duterte’s China card,” October 24, 2016) best represents the views of those who are skeptical of Duterte’s recalibration of Philippine foreign policy. Rocamora panned Duterte’s alignment with China—and Russia. He questioned its strategic value—or lack of it. “We have become the laughingstock of the world,” Rocamora concluded. “In the end, our biggest problem is that our President is, plain and simple, incompetent.”

Rocamora’s analysis is all shine but wanting in substance. It dismisses Duterte’s strategic move as hogwash but fails to demonstrate that this strategic move is the least desirable option given the current geopolitical situation. What ultimately weakened Rocamora’s analysis is his questionable appreciation of facts, events, current political economic reality, and US interests.

Rocamora said that US military projection in the South China Sea “is in support of freedom of navigation and international rules on territorial claims (UNCLOS), in this case represented by the decision of an arbitral tribunal in The Hague.”

First of all, the UNCLOS is not a rule on territorial claim. The decision of the arbitral tribunal in The Hague made this clear; UNCLOS “does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory.” Because of this, the arbitral tribunal cannot “make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal.” Furthermore, as the arbitral decision has confirmed, UNCLOS doesn’t also “contain provisions concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries.”

Rocamora isn’t being transparent about what kind of navigation the United States is trying to protect in the South China Sea: commercial or military? At one point, it seems that he meant commercial navigation. China, according to Rocamora, would “want military control over vital sea lanes through which $5 trillion in trade pass per year.” This would be an existential threat to Japan, Rocamora warned. However, this could only be a threat to Japan if 1) the commercial trade passing through the South China Sea is mostly going to Japan; and 2) that Japan’s trade partners depend on the South China Sea. Considering the two conditions exposes the weakness of Rocamora’s argument.

Most of the trade passing through the South China Sea are going to China. Because of this, one can reasonably argue that any military projection of China in the South China Sea is meant to secure that trade route through which its export-oriented economy largely depends. Furthermore, China’s maritime assertiveness is rooted in its own history of being attacked by European and Japanese powers via the sea. Learning from its painful experience, China aims to strengthen its maritime defense in order to stem a repeat of that history. And it’s doing it by getting better control of the trade route to and from its shores.

The South China Sea is Japan’s major energy supply route; a bulk of it comes from the Middle East. But Japan is already diversifying its energy sources. For example, Japan’s deepening bilateral relations with Russia is largely energy-related. The Ukraine crisis induced Russia to pivot to the East, while the Fukushima disaster spurred Japan to warm up to Russia.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook, as of 2015 Japan’s top import partners are “China 24.8 percent, US 10.5 percent, Australia 5.4 percent, South Korea 4.1 percent; while its top export partners are US 20.2 percent, China 17.5 percent, South Korea 7.1 percent, Hong Kong 5.6 percent, Thailand 4.5 percent.” China is the top trading partner of Japan. The economic relationship between Japan, China and South Korea is set to intensify because they signed a trilateral landmark free trade agreement in June 2015.

Given these facts, why did Rocamora say that China’s presence in the South China Sea would be an existential threat to Japan whose top trade partner is China, with whom Japan signed a trilateral free trade agreement with South Korea? Why would China choke Japan’s economy while at the same time deepen its economic relations with it? It doesn’t make any sense — perhaps it does in Rocamora’s universe.

Let me conclude this with a conversation I had with a former Dutch classmate. He asked me to help him make sense of what’s going on with our country’s strange turn in its foreign policy. I told him: What’s there to explain? Duterte is simply doing what Europeans did to the US. Except the curses, the deeds are the same. The US urged European countries to not join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. But what did EU countries do? They defied their long-time ally and courted Chinese investments. The Dutch King even visited China in 2015! So, why can’t the Philippines do the same thing as EU countries are doing?

For Rocamora and those who share his views, we are the laughingstock of the world for doing exactly what the rest of the world is doing: deepening their economic ties and forming strategic partnerships with China to the chagrin of Uncle Sam.

ON the admission of the President himself, about 90-plus bureaucrats have to date been “let go” from his administration. Such a euphemism for dismissal cannot, however, mitigate the pain of PRRD’s wrath for those who were sacked, not to mention the grief their families have had to undergo.

Whether the sacking was deserved is not the point at issue here. This article will not examine the guilt or innocence of these public officials.

What needs to be examined is the policy concomitant to the dismissal of these officeholders. This is therefore not an in-depth investigation of individual circumstances singling out two of the President’s men who, because of the importance of their jobs, their personal closeness to the President and their high-profile dismissal, could be the core hypothesis of the President’s emerging doctrine of the “whiff of corruption”. As the Deegong himself stated, he will “…not tolerate any corruption in his administration and he will dismiss from office anyone who is tainted even by a ‘whiff of corruption’; and he is ready to sack any public official even on the basis of false allegations of corruption.”(Inquirer.net, March 30, 2017)

On April 3, after the Cabinet meeting, PRRD fired Interior Secretary Ismael Sueno on the spot due to “loss of trust and confidence”. This dismissal was precipitated by a joint report of Sueno’s three undersecretaries through a letter sent to the President alleging, among other things, the anomalous purchase of fire trucks from Austria. Imputations of corruption involving the acquisition of trucks for personal use and payoffs from illegal gambling were added to the menu of charges.

President Duterte questioned Sueno on the legal brief prepared by his accusers but he claimed not to have seen it. It was his “wrong answers” to Duterte’s questions that was the immediate trigger for Sueno’s firing. But the legal brief was reportedly kept from Sueno, so he claimed ignorance.

At a press briefing the next day, Sueno said:“Feeling ko naman walang [I feel that there was no] due process dahil [because]he did not listen to me…”.

On a similar matter earlier this year, Peter Laviña, was sacked as head of the National Irrigation Administration. It was precipitated by a report personally given to the President by NIA directors on February 23 that Laviña ”…allegedly called them and pointed out projects the regional office had and told them, ‘Kayo nang bahala sa akin’”[It’s up to you to take care of me].(Rappler).

The next day, February 24, in a speech in Davao, PRRD announced that he had fired an appointee (presumably referring to Laviña); and on February 27, PRRD intimated at a meeting with some members of labor groups that the NIA chief was fired for allegedly receiving “40 percent”. No details were given.

The President sealed Laviña’s fate and left his reputation shattered with the statement: “When I said there will be no corruption, there will be no corruption…even a whiff of corruption, talagang tatanggalin kita (I will fire you) …”

Over the following months, this Duterte Doctrine was applied several times but we don’t have the exact data on the carcasses of the bureaucrats strewn over the landscape. Most of these public servants were once close to the President and gifted by him with appointments to sinecures with the associated pelf and prestige.

Facts common to both sackings (Lavina and Sueno) are that these charges of anomalies were reported by subalterns from within their own organization direct to PRRD; the President within a period of a few days from receipt of information took action to dismiss the alleged offenders; the targets of these charges were not given ample time to prepare a reasonable defense; and they were not allowed to confront their accusers. But insidiously, the dismissals were done publicly putting to shame these alleged offenders without a measure of a face-saving mechanism. This public humiliation was a deliberate act by a President out to send a strong message to the bureaucracy, that the consequences of even a “whiff of corruption” are immediate, deadly and total.

From several standpoints, presidential prerogatives have wide acceptance when it comes to hiring and firing of people. And our laws are clear on the matter defining presidential responsibilities stipulated in the Constitution (Article VII, Section 16).

There is no question that the President has the power to terminate from the bureaucracy anyone whose performance displeases him. But the President must be subject to the minimum of fairness and the etiquette of dismissal, for no other reason than this is what is demanded of civilized behavior. But more importantly, there is a greater overarching principle that covers the conduct of the mighty, the powerful and the humble – the rule of law.

The latter demands that the accused officials must undergo “due process”. This is the minimum requirement for a just, humane and civilized democratic society. The requisite process is simply that allegations of transgressions be investigated in a transparent manner by legitimately sanctioned structures. And the President, by virtue of his ascendancy granted by the Constitution, has conferred on him also its primary guardianship. He must therefore uphold its principles.

From another standpoint, nations with weak leaders breed weak laws and will find themselves in a quagmire of corruption and lawlessness. Nations with prudent laws but governed by leaders void of political will to implement such laws may only cripple the primacy of the rule of law. But strong leaders with political will must understand that all are equal under the dominance of the rule of law; none above. President Rodrigo Duterte must aspire to be one of the latter.

By these precepts, the Duterte Doctrine is defective.

MANILA, Philippines - President Duterte is “a man who must be stopped,” The New York Times said yesterday.

In a scathing editorial titled “Let The World Condemn Duterte,” The New York Times (NYT) said the International Criminal Court (ICC) should “promptly open a preliminary investigation” into the allegations of mass killings against Duterte and 11 of his officials.

Although the ICC might be reluctant to start the investigation because Duterte is popular among Filipinos, NYT stressed there was “more than enough evidence” against the Philippine leader.

Lawyer Jude Sabio on Monday filed a complaint before the ICC, alleging Duterte had ordered the killing of more than 9,400 people, “most of them poor young men, but also bystanders, children and political opponents.”

After he was elected president last May, Duterte “took the killing campaign nationwide, effectively declaring an open season for police and vigilantes on drug dealers and users,” the editorial said.

The US publication said Duterte had paid members of the Davao death squad to kill suspected criminals and political opponents when he was still mayor of Davao City.

“Mr. Sabio is not the first to accuse Mr. Duterte of mass killings – so have Human Rights Watch, in 2009; Amnesty International, this January; and some brave Filipino politicians. The ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, declared last October that the court was ‘closely following’ developments in the Philippines,” the editorial said.

NYT also noted the confessions of the two former members of the supposed death squad, saying Duterte had provided them the hit list.

If these were not enough evidence, NYT said the ICC could take into account Duterte’s remarks that he would be “happy to slaughter” three million drug addicts, like “Hitler had killed three million Jews.”

“Now, there is three million drug addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them,” NYT quoted Duterte, describing it as one of his most outrageous statements while “misstating” the figure who died during the Holocaust, which was six million.

NYT said a preliminary investigation against Duterte will encourage the international community to take measures against him, such as imposing tariffs on Philippine goods.

“The ICC should promptly open a preliminary investigation into the killings,” its editorial said.

In an editorial last March, NYT called on the international community to revoke the Philippines’ trading privileges over the killings linked to Duterte’s war on drugs.

The purpose

Duterte has denied involvement with any of the killings, saying his orders to liquidate drug offenders were within the bounds of the law.

Duterte has said he welcomed the prospect of the ICC putting him on trial. He said last month he would not be intimidated and his campaign against drugs would be unrelenting and “brutal.”

Malacañang earlier said the NYT editorial was part of a demolition job against the Duterte administration.

Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella had said the ICC complaint filed by Sabio was part of the efforts to shame and embarrass Duterte and the Philippine government before the global community.

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo described the NYT editorial as “reckless, irresponsible and baseless.”

Panelo said the filing of a case against Duterte before the ICC was ill motivated.

He also questioned the timing of the editorial, which he said, “creates a bad impression against the President.”

Administration allies led by Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III warned the ICC of taking cognizance of the complaint filed by Sabio.

Pimentel described Sabio’s complaint as “weak” and obviously politically motivated.

“The ICC being professionals should immediately see the political purpose of this complaint,” Pimentel said.

“It’s up to the ICC if they will allow themselves to be used by domestic politics in the Philippines.”

Pimentel noted the 77-page complaint filed by Sabio alleged the Senate has been either reluctant to investigate Duterte, if not engaged in a cover-up.

Senators allied with Duterte immediately dismissed the filing as part of attempts to destabilize the administration.

Pimentel also defended Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Richard Gordon for protecting Duterte. – Paolo Romero, Janvic Mateo, Pia Lee-Brago, Christina Mendez

The Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) in partnership with the Konrad Adenaur Stiftung-Philippines will be gathering experts in political party building and federalism in establishing a working roadmap for a Federal-Parliamentary Philippines this coming 5 May 2017 in Hotel Vicente, Davao City, Philippines.

The dialogue will serve as a venue to discuss important topics such as successful political parties and the best practices of other countries that follows a Federal-Parliamentary form of government.

In essence, the objectives of the forum is to understand the experiences of other countries when it comes to political party management and federal-parliamentary government and appreciate its implications. Eventually, the end game is to come up with a working roadmap for a Federal and Parliamentary Philippines.

Mr. Roderico Y. Dumaug Jr. is currently teaching at Xavier University and the chairperson of the CDP Iligan City Chapter. He will be presenting case studies of successful political party management and strategies.

Mr. Ryan Maboloc, a professor from the Ateneo de Davao University, will be presenting successful federal and parliamentary governments with strong political parties.

Mr. Lito Monico C. Lorenzana, CDPI president and founder will be presenting the working roadmap for a Federal and Parliamentary Philippines.

An open forum will take place after the presentations.

ENVIRONMENT Secretary Gina Lopez believes that “we must build an economy based on love” and this belief is central to much of her vision of genuine development. This vision in turn informs her policy and position towards certain economic sectors like mining, forestry and energy. Certainly, one can understand how today’s “economists” could cringe upon hearing statements like this as our modern economies are largely based on money and politics where, as Bob Dylan, Nobel Laureate for Literature, sang, “love don’t have any place”.

Very true, considering that in an economy exchanges of goods and services between people are facilitated by money, meaning to say two people who do not know each other (and therefore cannot love each other) are able to exchange goods and services because there is money to facilitate the exchange even without love. Likely, the less love, the more money and more money velocity as the transaction is viewed purely on its own, on its utility to both parties and certainly, unless the parties knew and cared for each other, “love wouldn’t have any place” in the transaction.

So, how then can love become the foundation of the economy? I would say that in a fundamental way, it already is. First, all production and consumption starts from human need. And the smallest unit from which production and consumption starts in a society are the households. And logically, what starts most households are marriages that started from love. The children are normally loved and nurtured, to the point of parental sacrifice, for their own sake and not for money.

Now most households are founded not as a means of accumulating money and property (except for arranged marriages arranged for that very purpose and we know that many of these don’t last very long) but as the fulfillment of a deep love between two individuals who can procreate and form a living, growing household (although households now can be same-sex with adopted children, etc.). Therefore, in the most basic socio-economic unit, love plays the most important role.

Where the formal economy as we know it originates from is the concept of sectoral enterprises that take “land, capital and labor” and organize them for productive purposes so that households and other enterprises (and government) can consume for the totality of their needs for themselves and their household members. These units of organization, the sectoral enterprises, unlike the households, focus entirely on getting the largest sustainable return for the risk capital deployed. And for that to happen you can imagine that love would get in the way of that goal. Even corporate social responsibility projects (CSR) have little to do with love but rather have to do with corporate brand imaging development.

If one looks at the deepest impulses of sectoral enterprises versus households, one quickly realizes that the former depends on extraction, or taking, while the latter, the household impulses, are based on nurturance. And since households are rooted in specific areas or places, and have the impulse of nurturing, the village of households relying on the healthy functioning of ecosystems, in turn, take to nurturing and long-term economic management of their local environment. Natural villages of communities have been proven to be the best managers of their surrounding environment as compared to enterprises or government. This was proven by Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel Laureate for Economics.

“Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, received the Nobel Prize for her research proving the importance of the commons around the world. Her work investigating how communities co-operate to share resources drives to the heart of debates today about resource use, the public sphere and the future of the planet. She is the first woman to be awarded the Nobel in Economics.” (http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons)

Ostrom’s achievement effectively answers popular theories about the “tragedy of the commons,” which has been interpreted to mean that private property is the only means of protecting finite resources from ruin or depletion. She has documented in many places around the world how communities devise ways to govern the commons to assure its survival for their needs and future generations.

A classic example of this was her field research in a Swiss village where farmers tend private plots for crops but share a communal meadow to graze their cows. While this would appear a perfect model to prove the tragedy-of-the-commons theory, Ostrom discovered that in reality there were no problems with overgrazing. That is because of a common agreement among villagers that one is allowed to graze more cows on the meadow than they can care for over the winter—a rule that dates back to 1517. Ostrom has documented similar effective examples of “governing the commons” in her research in Kenya, Guatemala, Nepal, Turkey, and Los Angeles.

Based on her extensive work, Ostrom offers eight principles for how commons can be governed sustainably and equitably in a community.

The eight principles are anchored on principles of concern and nurturance, or love, which in turn results in long-term optimized use of natural resources that then becomes the foundation of the local economy.

The English word “economics” is from the Greek word “oikonomos” which meant the “management of the household”. And the Chinese knew that if the household was secure, progressive, healthy and productive, then the village would be just fine, and if the villages were doing well, then the town would do well, and if the towns were all doing well then the province and regions and the whole country would be doing fabulous. The global order would be peaceful and progressive when countries are peaceful and progressive with one not trying to over-extract from another to the point of hurting the other.

What can we make of the unraveling of the global economic order created after World War II and has resulted in unbearable inequality and negation of whole peoples that we are now gripped by the hate of terrorism and failed politics? Indeed, to me it means we need to put love back as the foundation of the economy and future columns will look at how that might happen.

THE GOVERNMENT, in general, maintains three main functions: stabilization, distribution, and allocation. Musgrave’s theory of public finance delineates the functions that will be assigned to federal government, to state government and local governments. The distribution and allocation functions of the states and local government are guided by the principle of efficiency and resource effectiveness; stabilization as an incumbent function of the federal government is rationalized by virtue of economies of scale.

The stabilization function is assigned to the federal government in maintaining stable aggregate demand, fiscal policies and sustaining stable prices. It is highly effective when carried by the federal government because competition of tiers of government is not possible in the stabilization function; instead it discourages differentiation of income levels across territories.

The distribution function is aimed at achieving the ethical notions of appropriate treatment of equals as equal. This function largely refers to tax assignments and transfer programs to achieve level of economic efficiency where desirable household incomes are maintained. Again, the aim is to ensure equal treatment of the equals. To this, the federal government takes care of this function.

The allocation function is handled by the state and local government. The government in the local tiers fills the gap within juridical territories where the market would fail. The production of public goods such as infrastructures, social services, health and education are provided because the state and local governments know better the demands of their citizens more than the ability of the federal government. The primacy of the state government in the allocation function is borne by the proximity principle. Rationally, the proximity of the government is the best barometer in deciding what public goods is demanded.

The state also maintains advantage in allocation function given the nature of the demand of geographically grouped citizens within a territory as it is highly defined and specific. Thus, when the state provides public goods, this is much closer to of any citizen’s demand. On the other hand, the production function in providing the public goods maintains constant returns to scale where inputs are private resource with rival characteristics. Here, the market will become inefficient: supply of the goods will be scarce while demand is very high due to the close uniformity of the revealed preferences of the public. This superimposes the market functions. The state government is obliged to intervene to ensure that citizens enjoy as equal are treated as equal. To this, every individual will have equity of access to government services. Note here, the term used is equity. This suggests that those who are weak, marginalized and helpless get the biggest attention of the government in terms of social services, education, health, early childhood education. However, this is costly if bannered by one state alone; this is costly on the budget. Though, this is also espoused in the inclusive growth principle in a unitary government; yet it remains a theory because the ability of the unitary government is highly limited and deeply narrowed by rent-seeking behaviors in the bureaucracy. In unitary government, the name of the game is log-rolling and pork barrel. Very costly and quickly depreciates ethics of service. In federal system, there will be no more pork barrel; there will be no more log-rolling. The budget is as good as what is spent by the government. In federal government, padding, cuts and shares, all the SOPs will be reduced if not totally eliminated. I was asked, is this possible? This is already a culture in the government? It can be changed. The substance takes the form of the container. Unitary is highly susceptible to corruption, and thus government spending is deeply laden with corruption. The exact opposite is federalism. This encourages ethics of governance and direct accountability of the government to the governed. The distance of the government is the first proof to this; the government is very near to the people it governs.

The Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines (CDP) – Ang Partido ng Tunay na Demokrasya will be having its 13th National Council Meeting on May 5, 2017 at Hotel Vicente, Davao City, Philippines to discuss and further its local and national initiatives in pursuing a Federal-Parliamentary Philippines as one of its major advocacies.

More than a hundred of elected representatives from different CDP chapters around the country will be attending. Aside from the elected delegates coming from various cities, municipalities and provinces, CDP elective officials through its organized group Simula ng Bagong Umaga Landasin (SIBUL) headed by Cong. Maximo Rodriguez, Centrist Democratic Youth Association of the Philippines (CDYAP), and the Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) are also expected to participate.

There will be a reading, adoption, and approval of the Minutes of the 12th National Council (NC) Meeting and the present Agenda of the 13th National Council Meeting. Atty. Rufus B. Rodriguez, the Centrist Democratic Party President, will give the open remarks and the introduction before the council.

Reports regarding the update from the Office of the National Secretariat, Sector Associations (CDYAP and SIBUL) and updates from all chapters will be presented. Hon. Maximo B. Rodriguez, Second District of Cagayan de Oro City Representative and the CDP-SIBUL Chairperson, will present the legislative initiatives of CDP in the House of Representatives.

The council meeting will also hold discussions and approval on the CDP Operations Management and Oversight Board Workshop, Proposed Amendments of the Constitution and Bylaws, Proposed Working Documents of the Thematic Commissions.

The party chairperson will report on the strategic recruitment, nationwide Federalism campaign, and progress report of the CDPI Fellows’ initiatives. The concluding message will be given by the party president.