Part 4: Framework for federalism
IN last week’s Part 3, we proposed enacting four laws (the preconditions) prior to revising the 1987 Constitution. Once in place, a framework for federalism can be written in the revised Constitution as a constitutional pathway even beyond the term of President Duterte. Federalism as a solution for the systemic deficiencies in the country requires the collective energy of its adherents and the commitment of the bureaucracy to inform and educate the great masses of our people on its nuances and advantages. The messaging should give substance to what was once a formidable slogan cloaking it with a pragmatic step-by-step process.
To reiterate, federalism is the type of government where power and authority are not centralized but shared between the national central government (federal) and the regional governments (states). This system allows states to develop themselves the way they see fit based on their culture and specific conditions. Some areas of public life are under the control of the federal government (security and defense, money and coinage, diplomacy and foreign affairs, etc.). Some are left to the states (education, revenue generation and taxation, franchises licenses, and permits, etc.), and some are shared (raising taxes, borrowing money, criminal justice, etc.). These are all to be guaranteed in the Constitution.
Federalism is a multi-step process that must be clearly written in the Constitution. We can’t just legislate federalism or just write in the Constitution that we are a de facto Federal Republic tomorrow. What can be written is the framework, the road map as it were to attain the Philippine Federal Republic; beyond the term of DU30 and even in the next decade or so. So even with the Deegong gone from the political scene, we will have planted today the seeds of our Federal Republic.
Creation of autonomous territories
The Centrist proposal’s version has its roots on the concept of autonomy, subsidiarity and self-determination. Initially, we allow the existing provinces and highly urbanized component cities to evolve first to an autonomous territory with the decision to group themselves coming from the grassroots level (pinatubo). “Self-determination” is central to this decision. In other words, the citizens within a contiguous territory, with common language and culture must decide in a referendum that they become completely autonomous. Petitions are then passed by their local legislative assemblies.
Once a referendum is passed, within a year, parliament (or Congress) must enact an organic law defining the autonomous territory’s land area, powers, obligations and sources of revenues (taxes), mindful of the components’ economic viability. The autonomous territory then writes its own constitution to be approved in a plebiscite by its own people.
The Philippines may eventually end up with from eight to 12 federal states. Parliament can’t impose on the current provinces and cities but can give general guidelines on how states are formed based on criteria to be embedded in the revised Constitution (i.e. common culture, language, custom, contiguous areas and economic viability). Therefore, it is necessary that these contiguous provinces and cities need to negotiate among each other.
If three-fifths (60 percent) of the provinces and component cities of the Philippines become autonomous territories, then the Federal Republic of the Philippines is created.
Congress recently enacted into law RA 11054, an Organic Act creating the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The BARMM also adopted a parliamentary form where the executive and legislative bodies are fused. It could be the template by which autonomous territories can be created all over the country not by the sufferance of Congress but through the revisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Mode of changing Constitution
A critical consideration in the writing of the new constitution is the participation of Congress. Under the current 1987 Constitution only three modes are allowed: people’s initiative (PI), constituent assembly (ConAss) and a constitutional convention (ConCon).
1. PI is eliminated as the constitutional changes being contemplated are not mere amendments but a revision of the 1987 Constitution.
2. ConAss will involve the members of Senate and Congress writing a constitution. With 80 percent of congressmen and senators members of political dynasties and allies of the oligarchy, the finished product will be highly flawed.
3. The third option therefore, ConCon, could be the better alternative, provided a combination of elected delegates is balanced with the appointed chosen delegates of the President.
Most of these elected delegates would be the moneyed few, members of political dynasties whose clans and family interest take precedence. The chosen appointed constitutional experts even from the marginalized sectors — who could never afford and win an electoral campaign, can counter and balance these dynasts — and give the presidential agenda a chance to be debated and pondered upon well.
Case for federal-parliamentary system
Empirical evidence shows how countries under the presidential system have serious problems of corruption, development and peace. Consider the following:
1. Nine out of 10 countries in the 2015 Transparency International Corruption index’s most corrupt/least transparent countries are under a presidential system, with Iraq the lone exception that has a federal-parliamentary form.
2. And five of these are ranked the least peaceful nations in the world, according to the 2015 Global Peace Index (GPI).
3. Similarly, in nations with the highest Terrorism Index, more countries have a presidential form (Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, the Philippines) while the rest have parliamentary governments (Iraq, Pakistan and India).
With our unitary-presidential system, the Philippines ranks among these countries: Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Angola, Libya, Iraq, Venezuela and Guinea-Bissau; followed by Syria, Yemen, Central Africa Republic, Ukraine and Libya.
Least corrupt countries (the better ones)
In contrast, all of those in the top 16 “least corrupt” nations are under a parliamentary system, with the exception of the United States (presidential-federal); and these are also the 16 most prosperous nations in the world. They lead in curbing corruption and ranked high in human development in the 2015 UNDP human development index. These countries are Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the US, Iceland, Luxembourg, the UK and Australia.
Empirical evidence shows that a federal form is definitely better than a unitary system. But clearly it also suggests that a parliamentary system is superior to the presidential form in many criteria of government performance.
Postscript
Last week’s SONA was a total disappointment to the fed-parl advocates and political reformers. DU30, the last hope of the federalists was eloquently profound in his silence on the revision of the Constitution that could usher in badly needed systemic reforms. I will just quote Senator Drilon: “…the non- inclusion of federalism indicates that the Cha-cha was laid to rest…Those who have plans to revive it this 18th Congress should better think twice. It will be an exercise in futility.” Thus spoke the head of the opposition in the Senate. In the end, the Yellows won!
And from the Deegong himself, after his SONA: “…federalism is complicated…it will not happen during my term.” The last nail in the coffin. Federalism is dead, please don’t send flowers.
SCANNING the headlines and social media the past three weeks, one can’t help being dumbfounded at how we have gone overboard on the Reed/Recto Bank incident. From where I sit, I see the Philippine government preventing “making a mountain out of molehill”; and conversely, the opposition frantically elevating to an Everest size one that is already a mountain. Methinks this is an extension of the elections where the opposition Otso Diretso was obliterated. They needed to find another issue against their bete noire, the Deegong. And in the process transform this maritime faux pas to polarize the country, the DDS and fist pumpers on one side against the yellow hordes on the other, leaving the majority of our people perplexed as to where we are all heading. First blood was drawn by the opposition (and some allies) suggesting government should invoke the US-Philippine Military Defense Treaty (MDT) on the sinking of the Gem-Ver. The thesis of the opposition is that this is a gross infringement of Philippine sovereignty and therefore, in indignation, the President must defend our honor.
And where was the President in all of this? Practically on the sidelines weighing his options before wading in. This could be the prudent move. I don’t often agree with the “mouthslinger from the south,” quick to the verbal draw replete with curses and p—–ina. But this time, he tamed his inner demons by his momentary silence. But the Yellow forces would not allow him an inch, accusing him of playing to his new Chinese friends against the better interest of his countrymen. But they are wrong. Deegong was following his playbook and a tactic that could give him better hold of his sensitive relations with China. Dealing with a bully does not call for a linear response, as the President knows very well, being adept at the craft of intimidation himself.
If memory serves, during the tragic Rizal Park hostage crisis of PNoy in 2010, an ex-policeman hijacked a tourist bus and with the intervention of the Filipino “elite kuno SWAT,” resulted in the massacre of eight Chinese citizens. As this was with full TV coverage for several hours, an international uproar ensued. And what did the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Donald Tsang, do? He was “silent” — except for a formal protest through proper channels. This is diplomacy. Similarly, the Deegong may have understood its nuances, commenting only when things are clearer.
And then the Deegong opened his mouth. “This was just a minor incident and China can fish in the Philippine waters…because we are friends.” Then the s–t hits the fan.
Mr. President, this is not a question of friendship. This is international diplomacy where leaders do not speak personally for themselves but collectively for the people. This is not a Davaoeño’s informal concept of “ato-ato ra ni, istoryahan na lang nato ni!” (Let’s just talk informally by ourselves.)
“Chinese can’t fish in PH territory” (The Manila Times, headline June 27, 2019). “Letting Chinese fish in PH waters hit as illegal” (Philippine Daily Inquirer, headline June 27, 2019). “The Philippine government cannot allow Chinese fishermen to fish in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine (South China) Sea because it will violate the Constitution” (Supreme Court Justice Carpio). “Impeach Duterte, Palace dares critics” (The Manila Times, headline June 28, 2019).
I will not add to this cacophony and argue for or against except to put in proper perspective the sorry state of the presidency and the knee-jerk response of the President’s men. All the senior people from the foppish spokesman to the normally sober SecDef to the tactless first diplomat (calling VP Robredo “boba”) to the “Uziseros” Cusi and Piñol contributing to the chaos by saying one thing and reversing themselves — to where the President leans. And where is the NSC Adviser Hermogenes Esperon in all this? His silence is deafening. He should be in the forefront wading in the muck. You can’t allow the President to talk his head off by his lonesome. The Deegong needs a “heat shield” to deflect all sorts of criticism and attacks. This is the job of the President’s alter ego on matters of national security.
In short, these senior people don’t serve the President well if they remain “loyal yes men” — unable to give good advice to the Deegong, even if such is contrary to his position and inviting his wrath.
Enough already! The President’s marionettes and court jesters should just shut up and revert to the country’s pressing problems that impact more heavily on the Filipinos’ daily lives. I refer to a scam that has been ongoing for years. KAPA, a Ponzi scheme, needs the attention of the Office of the President badly as this is eating into the sinews of his primary base — the poor and downtrodden.
This onerous money-making scheme plays into the Filipino’s desperate dream of riches, an infectious disease affecting both the poor masses and the greedy, mixed in the deadly cauldron of religion. The “Kabus Padatu-on” (make the poor rich, or KAPA) is a religious ministry spreading in social media, enticing the faithful to invest a one-time donation in return for receiving a monthly 30 percent of the amount for life. There is no way any investment in any facet of the legitimate economy or business can offer that kind of return. What is galling is that this scheme has been known to government authorities. In fact, “…the SEC said it issued an advisory against KAPA as early as March 2017, a cease and desist order on Feb. 14, 2019, and an order revoking its registration on April 3 this year.” The SEC declared that KAPA was in violation of Republic Act 8799, or the Securities Regulation Code (SRC). But there are whispers that local government candidates in the recent elections tolerated this scheme to raise campaign funds. But our law enforcement agencies did not do anything until the recent exposure in the press. DU30 should start cutting some heads off.
Similar schemes have reared their ugly head in the recent years. The Legacy Group of companies’ pre-need plans promised doubling your “investments” after a short period of time. The group included rural banks accepting deposits, with company officials dipping their dirty little fingers into it for bogus loans for personal use. Bangko Sentral (BSP) eventually filed charges of estafa in 2009 against the company for offering unregistered securities. What made the scam attractive to others was the inclusion of their biggest victims as a come-on, a former speaker of the House of Representatives who reportedly lost P18 to 20 million.
And these swindles keep appearing intermittently among the most vulnerable sectors of our society — the rural folk. Yet our officials are instead occupied in mulling over the nuances of the Reed/Recto Bank incident, whether DU30’s invitation to China to fish in our EEZ constitute an impeachable offense. But what takes the cake are the Senate President’s profound reflections on “…the difficulty of exclusivity (of EEZ) underwater (as) the Philippine fish could come from China…and (conversely) Chinese fish could come from the Philippines.” Deep thoughts, indeed!