Live questions about Bangsamoro
Congress will soon be formulating the law that will implement the desires expressed in the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro for a Bangsamoro government. Even before the debate goes to Congress, various sectors are discussing what problems the implementation of the Framework might encounter when face to face with the Constitution.
One question I have heard raised is whether the Constitution allows a ministerial form of government. But why is the question being asked? I think it is because the Bangsamoro government will be a local government and the form of local government we are used to is the structure which consists of a single executive and a legislative body. But the answer to the question being raised should be found in what the current Constitution says.
The structure of local governments we are accustomed to consists of a single executive, whether mayor or governor, and a legislative body. It is patterned after the national government which has a president and Congress. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prescribes that this pattern be followed for local governments. What Article X says is that “The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national laws.”
What the provision says is that the structure of government shall consist of “the executive
department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units.” While these shall be “elective and representative of the constituent political units,” it does not say what the executive department should consist of, that is, whether the executive should be elected directly by the people or chosen by the legislative assembly the way a prime minister is chosen or whether the legislative department should be patterned after the Cabinet in the British system. What the executive and legislative departments will look like can be determined by Congress.
Another question I have heard raised is whether the autonomous region can have an autonomous judicial system with its own Supreme Court. My thinking on this is based on my understanding of the scope of the power of the Supreme Court in the 1987 Constitution.
Article VIII vests judicial power “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.” But further it says that “The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.” The highest court in the autonomous region therefore can be given its own exclusive powers but it cannot be independent of the national Supreme Court in matters covered by Section 5. Section 5 gives to the Supreme Court powers over a long list of powers which it cannot be deprived of.
Another question is about the allowable extent of the power which may be given to the autonomous region over natural resources. This matter is covered by Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution which declares that all natural resources are owned by the state. “The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.” This, however, does not prevent Congress from delegating some power over natural resources to the autonomous region.
Questions have also been raised about the police forces. Section 6 of Article XVI of the Constitution says: “The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and the controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.” For its part, the Annex to the Framework speaks of a “police force in the Bangsamoro which shall be professional, civilian in character, effective and efficient in law enforcement, fair and impartial and accountable under the law for its action. It shall be responsible both to the Central Government and to the Bangsamoro government and to the committee it serves. An independent Commission on Policing shall recommend the appropriate policing for the Bangsamoro.”
What will happen to these items found in the Framework when they reach Congress for debate? The impression I am getting is that Congress wishes to accommodate all these, within the limits of the Constitution of course. In the rare instances when a departure from constitutional provisions may be seen as an obstacle, the voices I am hearing from Congress indicate a willingness to make the necessary adjustment to make the Constitution not an obstacle. Judging from the voices from Congress and also from the Palace, we should have a Bangsamoro Law in the not too distant future.
